Re: [BOFChairs] Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

While this is all useful and i applaud the effort, it wouldn't
necessarily be on the top of my list of what i would be worried about:

When figuring out whether to depend on a particular external standard,
i am less worried about a possible paywall, but primarily about the
possible patents or license conditions to adopt the standards content.

Already for our own standards it is quite obscure for most people
reading RFCs how to figure out the IPR claims about them. AFAIK
(unless RFC template has changed recently), no mentioning in the
RFC itself.

Aka: I would at least suggest to come up with template text in
drafts and final RFCs that captures these use challenges. Even if
just standard text for how to find our own IPR which would need to
incldue the names of the drafts, individual and then WG etc..).

And then of course considerations for references. Patents, paywalls,
licenses, whatever we know. Obviously suggested ways to express this
that do not incur legal issues and makes it clear the info is best
effort and needs to be validated by the reader.

Cheers
    toerless

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:35:22AM -0700, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I think it???s a very good idea to note this kind of information in the reference, and one easily implemented by using the <annotation> field. That would put the paywall warning immediately after the URL in the reference. [1]
> 
> In general, I have a strong preference towards open standards, but understand that???s just not possible/practical in all cases. I???m sure the IETF will sort out how to at least get free access for IETF authors, editors, and reviewers, during the drafting stage for an I-D, while the RFC Editor can help make it clear where there is a blocker to more general access to a document.
> 
> -Heather
> 
> [1] Purely as an example; this doc is actually not paywalled:
> 
> [BUFFERBLOAT] Gettys, J. And K. Nichols, ???Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the Internet???, DOI 10.1145/2063166.2071893, ACM Queue, Volume 9, Issue 11, November 2011, <https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893 <https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893>>. (At the time of writing, this resource has restricted access.)
> 
> > On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > +1 ... something in the reference itself should indicate that the document (at time of writing) has restricted access.
> > 
> > That would also help all those involved and put less requirements on shepherds to confirm if all external references are publicly available (that might require disconnecting from a corporate vpn or not being on a corporate net to determine).
> > 
> > - Bernie
> > 
> >> On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> 
> >> IMO it would be better if the citation explicitly indicated that this document has a pay wall or limited access.
> >> 
> >>   Thanks,
> >>   Paul
> >> 
> >>> On 6/12/19 6:00 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> >>> Hi chairs,
> >>>  In the past we have dealt with a few drafts that have had normative references to paywalled documents and we have dealt with them on a case-by-case basis (usually during or after IETF last call). In order to get the working groups involved earlier in the process, the IESG is working on issuing a statement on how to deal with such drafts and we would greatly appreciate input from WG chairs on this topic. This is the proposed text of the statement
> >>> *** START TEXT ***
> >>> As described in Section 7.1 of RFC 2026, RFCs may have normative
> >>> references on external standards.
> >>> In some cases, however, those references are themselves not generally
> >>> available (for instance, they might be accessible only after paying
> >>> a fee). This can interfere both with the ability of implementers
> >>> to implement the protocol as well as with the ability of the IETF
> >>> community to review it.
> >>> In such cases:
> >>> 1. The WG MUST be explicitly informed of any such normative reference
> >>> and the WG MUST reach consensus that it is acceptable. The
> >>> document shepherd MUST include this information in the shepherd
> >>> writeup.
> >>> 2. The reference MUST be explicitly noted as part of the IETF Last
> >>> Call. If such a note is omitted, the last call MUST be repeated
> >>> after including it.
> >>> *** END TEXT ***
> >>> Please go over this text and let me know if you have any concerns, comments, or additions by 2019/06/26.
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Suresh
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > BOFChairs mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bofchairs
> 

-- 
---
[e-mail]