Sorry there was a typo in the orig.
----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey worldnet.att.net>
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>; "Scott Bradner"
<sobharvard.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:27 AM
Subject: in Re 2028 wording
> Scott I noticed that the process workflow is not
described in any detail
> beyond the high-level roles descriptions. From these,
the actually Vetting
> Pool was missing, as was the work-flow that they are to
take to perform
the
> vetting that makes up the IETF's Standards Process. I
dont think this was
> cleaned up in BCP78 or BCP79 either
>
> ---------------------
>
> 2.4 The Vetting Team
> ===============
> All "IETF Initiatives"** are vetted within
the IETF's WG's. This vetting
is
> accomplished through active discussion and debate on
the WG's Mailing
List
> that is acting as a home for any specific initiative.
Within each WG, the
> "vetting teams" are established by the WG
Chair or AD's responsible for
that
> WG. The actual project plan and a Minimum Activity
Commitment is produced
> by the Sponsoring Individual or Entity, and submitted
for review and
> approval of the WG's Chair.
>
> In all instances, Vetting Team's actions are to comply
with the larger
IETF
> ethical mandate and be fair and open to all. In some
instances where a
group
> of individuals has come together for the specific
purpose of implementing
a
> protocol, then those groups are to operate as such, but
in all instances,
they
> would be open to external participants.
>
> To more fully facilitate this process, the steps to be
undertaken in the
> Initiative's vetting process are to be defined at the
start of the
> Initiative's project to create an IETF Standard.
>
> 2.4.1 Vetting Team Management
> ---------------------------------
> The Vetting Team is generally lead or managed to some
extent by the role
> defined as the WG's "Document Editor" for any
given IETF Initiative. This
> leadership role is also often tied to the contributor
to manage the
> protection of their IP rights in the Standards Efforts
that make up the
> Vetting and Second Port Implementation and
Interoperability Testing
> processes. See Section 2.3 of RFC2028 for more detail.
>
> 2.4.2 Team Size
> ----------------
> The size of the Minimum Number of Vetting Participants
in any given
> Initiative is set by the Initiative's Sponsor and the
IETF's WG' Chair in
> their setting up the Initiative's Standards Run. In all
instances a
Vetting
> Team must be equal to a minimum of four individuals.
Vetting pool members
> may also be transitory but at all times all vetting
initiatives must have
a
> minimum of two members to be considered active. In the
event that any
> imitative drops below this minimum membership status,
it is suspended for
1
> IETF meeting cycle and then if no more members join in,
it is hibernated
> indefinitely until such time as its membership picks up
and meets the
> Initiative's Minimum Activity Commitment.
>
> 2.4.3 Team Records Keeping
> ------------------------------
> In all instances, all materials whether submitted
through the mailing
list,
> or off-list through those agreed upon project
participants, would be
> disclosed to the WG Chairs as part of the process of
"turning the Vetting
> History for each Initiative over to the IETF/IESG"
as part of its periodic
> and standard's compliance petition.
>
>
>
> -------------------
>
> ** an IETF initiative does not necessarily have to be a
Standards
> Initiative, but could rather be a Best Current Practice
or other IETF
> Document. The process flows are adjusted as necessary
since BCP's will not
> likely have a Second Port and Interoperability Testing
requirement like a
> Standard's Initiative would.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <todd.glasseyworldnet.att.net>
> To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>; "todd glassey"
> <todd.glasseyatt.net>; <ipr-wgietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Status summary, IPR WG - Jan 17, 2005
>
>
> > Harald - for ANYONE to take a statement of design
and implement a
physical
> > protocol from it MANDATES that they have
DERVIATIVE LICENSING for said
> same
> > protocol. So how does the IETF's process wherein
the key milestone is
TWO
> > INTEROPERABLE PORTS being implemented, deal with
the actual coding and
> > implementation of that second port.
> >
> > Seems to me that this is a Catch 22 that has
endangered EVERY SINGLE
> > STANDARD issued to date.
> >
> > Sorry - but IP law is what it is.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
<haraldalvestrand.no>
> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glasseyatt.net>; <ipr-wgietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: Status summary, IPR WG - Jan 17, 2005
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --On tirsdag, januar 17, 2006 07:11:15 -0800
todd glassey
> > > <todd.glasseyworldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Trying to summarize the situation
again, hopefully having refined
the
> > > >> understanding of the issues
somewhat:
> > > >>
> > > >> > From the chairs:
> > > >>
> > > >> We believe that this is a fair
summary of where the WG is today:
> > > >>
> > > >> - The IETF at the moment DOES NOT
HAVE THE RIGHT to permit
derivative
> > > > works
> > > >> to be produced from I-Ds or drafts
outside the IETF process. The
> > authors
> > > >> have that right, but the IETF has
not been granted it.
> > > >> This is a fact, and not something
the WG can change, even if it
> wishes
> > it
> > > >> was otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > If this is true then the IETF cannot
possibly operate its Standards
> > Track
> > > > since the SECOND PORT requirement would
have to be licensed by the
> > > > submitters of the original IP one would
think.
> > >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > We're NOT TALKING ABOUT PATENTS.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|