copyright boilerplate for independent submissions

Current practice (as documented in an ION) is to issue a
Last Call 
for all Informational documents that as sponsored by an AD. 
There is 
an exception for documents that come from the IRTF via the
IRSG, and 
there is a document in the works to describe that
situation.

Russ

At 08:15 AM 8/22/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
>I have argued
>elsewhere, as have others, that "approval by the
IETF" requires
>a Last Call.  IESG approval of documents for
IESG-sponsored
>informational publication has not traditionally required
an IETF
>Last Call, although the IESG certainly has the option
of
>conducting one.


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

--On Wednesday, 22 August, 2007 15:06 -0400 Russ Housley
<housleyvigilsec.com> wrote:

> Current practice (as documented in an ION) is to issue
a Last
> Call for all Informational documents that as sponsored
by an
> AD.  There is an exception for documents that come from
the
> IRTF via the IRSG, and there is a document in the works
to
> describe that situation.

Russ, while I think this is worthwhile, I will note, as
others
have, that a call for comments is different from a call for
consensus.  The IAB has issued calls for comments, sometimes
as
a notice of intent to publish, on many or all of its
documents
for some time, but still publishes them as IAB documents,
not
IETF ones.  Unless IESG is going to start issuing consensus
calls, or rejecting the AD sponsorship and leaving the
document
to the author and RFC Editor unless a clear IETF consensus
emerges, I don't think these calls change the key issue.

     john





_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietfjck.com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpentergmail.com>; "Bill Fenner" 
<fennergmail.com>
Cc: "Harald Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>; <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: copyright boilerplate for independent
submissions


>
>
> --On Tuesday, 21 August, 2007 12:44 +0200 Brian E
Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpentergmail.com> wrote:
>
>>...
>> I think you're correct that there's an
inconsistency between
>> section 4
>> and section 6. Probably something is needed in s.6
to resolve
>> this,
>> e.g. after the second paragraph:
>>
>> In the case of Internet-Drafts intended to become
RFC Editor
>> documents
>> (see Section 4) the Legend Instructions should be
developed in
>> agreement
>> with the RFC Editor, but should include conditional
statements
>> allowing
>> for the case where such a draft is later approved
by the IETF
>> itself.
>
> Brian,
>
> As should be evident from the recent debate on the IETF
list
> over draft-hartman-webauth-phishing, there is no
consensus that
> approval of publication of an informational RFC by the
IESG (aka
> "on the IETF track") is "approval by the
IETF".

OK let me ask then "Why is the IESG approving
ANYTHING?" are they not 
servents to the process and not the other way around? That
said - the IETF 
itself shouldnt be approving anything except as
"compliant to the IETF's 
processes". If the IETF or IESG become 'approvers of
the technology included 
in any posting' then their arm's length from the content of
their 
publications evaporates and this creates all kinds of
liabiltiy and process 
issues which the IETF's current oversight doesnt address.

> I have argued
> elsewhere, as have others, that "approval by the
IETF" requires
> a Last Call.  IESG approval of documents for
IESG-sponsored
> informational publication has not traditionally
required an IETF
> Last Call, although the IESG certainly has the option
of
> conducting one.  The  more recent debate over
> draft-hartman-webauth-phishing indicates that some
members of
> the community believe that such a Last Call must
explicitly
> indicate that it is a call for consensus if there is to
be any
> claim of "IETF approval" or "IETF
endorsement".

Again the IETF and its parental orgs afe not endorsers of
any specific 
technology and when they become such they lose their
objective distance from 
that IP and become liable to other's who's IP was not given
the same 
endorsement within the IETF. That said, the simple way to
protect oneself 
from that liability is to not endorse anything except as
'being complaint to 
the IETF's process and standards milestone requirements'.

All a  concensus call means really then is "the working
group is done with 
some formal round of vetting/re-engineering and that the IP
is to be 
submitted to the IESG for verification that those milestone
requirement were 
functionally and mechanically met", and that is
symbolic (and possibly 
contractually too) of that the WG has fulfulled the
requirements of that 
standards process model such that this IP is ready for
executive review by 
the IESG.

>
> So, while I don't disagree with the principle behind
your
> suggestion above, any wording along those lines would
need to be
> _very_ carefully constructed... and the wording in your
note is
> certainly not either sufficient or appropriate.
>
> best,
>     john
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

John,

I agree that my text needs wordsmithing for consistency
with the broader definitions in the RFC 4844/45/46 series.
I'm otherwise occupied right now, so feel free to
rewrite.

    Brian

On 2007-08-22 14:15, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Tuesday, 21 August, 2007 12:44 +0200 Brian E
Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpentergmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> I think you're correct that there's an
inconsistency between
>> section 4
>> and section 6. Probably something is needed in s.6
to resolve
>> this,
>> e.g. after the second paragraph:
>>
>> In the case of Internet-Drafts intended to become
RFC Editor
>> documents
>> (see Section 4) the Legend Instructions should be
developed in
>> agreement
>> with the RFC Editor, but should include conditional
statements
>> allowing
>> for the case where such a draft is later approved
by the IETF
>> itself.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> As should be evident from the recent debate on the IETF
list
> over draft-hartman-webauth-phishing, there is no
consensus that
> approval of publication of an informational RFC by the
IESG (aka
> "on the IETF track") is "approval by the
IETF".  I have argued
> elsewhere, as have others, that "approval by the
IETF" requires
> a Last Call.  IESG approval of documents for
IESG-sponsored
> informational publication has not traditionally
required an IETF
> Last Call, although the IESG certainly has the option
of
> conducting one.  The  more recent debate over
> draft-hartman-webauth-phishing indicates that some
members of
> the community believe that such a Last Call must
explicitly
> indicate that it is a call for consensus if there is to
be any
> claim of "IETF approval" or "IETF
endorsement".
> 
> So, while I don't disagree with the principle behind
your
> suggestion above, any wording along those lines would
need to be
> _very_ carefully constructed... and the wording in your
note is
> certainly not either sufficient or appropriate.
> 
> best,
>      john
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

John:

I suppose that different ADs had different concerns, but the
point is 
that people have the opportunity to voice support and
concern, even 
for documents that are going to be published an
Informational.  I 
recognize that standards-track and BCP documents require
rough 
consensus, while other categories do not.

Russ

At 05:03 PM 8/22/2007, John C Klensin wrote:


>--On Wednesday, 22 August, 2007 15:06 -0400 Russ
Housley
><housleyvigilsec.com> wrote:
>
> > Current practice (as documented in an ION) is to
issue a Last
> > Call for all Informational documents that as
sponsored by an
> > AD.  There is an exception for documents that come
from the
> > IRTF via the IRSG, and there is a document in the
works to
> > describe that situation.
>
>Russ, while I think this is worthwhile, I will note, as
others
>have, that a call for comments is different from a call
for
>consensus.  The IAB has issued calls for comments,
sometimes as
>a notice of intent to publish, on many or all of its
documents
>for some time, but still publishes them as IAB
documents, not
>IETF ones.  Unless IESG is going to start issuing
consensus
>calls, or rejecting the AD sponsorship and leaving the
document
>to the author and RFC Editor unless a clear IETF
consensus
>emerges, I don't think these calls change the key
issue.
>
>      john


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg