Subject: Issue found with BCP 78 version 2

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:47:38 +0100

Folks,

the RFC Editor has identified a problem with the current rights draft, and 
has suggested a fix.

If nobody objects to this fix within a day or so, I'll tell them it's OK.

I did not want to change this without a public record.

                    Harald

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: onsdag, desember 08, 2004 11:35:00 -0800
From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: BCP 78, RFC 3907 
<draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix-00.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Harald,

I should explain the nature of the current problem with BCP 79bis, and
my perplexity on how to fix it.

BCP 78 prescribes copyright boilerplate in an Internet Draft. In
practice, the RFC Editor inserts boilerplate that is very slightly
different for independent submissions:

 IETF submissions (text as in BCP 78):

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

 Independent submissions:

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set
   forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This difference is consistent with the intent of the WG that developed
BCP 78, that the RFC Editor should determine the copyright rules for
independent submissions.  In particular, we have a broader allowance
for derivative works, as noted in www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html.

In contrast, Section 5 of BCP 79 prescribes the IPR disclaimer
boilerplate that the RFC Editor must put into IETF submissions and
all RFC Editor submissions for which IPR has been declared.  It has
repeatedly been suggested to us that the simplest approach for us
is to always put in the disclaimer text, and we have agreed to this.

Unfortunately, the prescribed boilerplate includes the sentence:

      Information on the procedures with respect to rights
      in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

This statement apparently covers BOTH BCP 78 copyright procedures and
BCP 79 patent procedures, and it is incomplete in the first case, as
noted above.

A proposed fix is to insert the following in the IPR boilerplate,

      Information on the procedures with respect to rights
      in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78, BCP 79, and
      at rfc-editor.org.

I have discussed this with Scott, and he said it "looks right".
But this change will contradict BCP 79bis (as well as BCP 79).

Is there a chance we can change BCP 79bis?

Thanks,

Bob Braden

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:39:16 -0500

>      in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78, BCP 79, and

We refer to at least one URL elsewhere so okay.  Do you want to make it
a full URL?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:39:21 +0100

>      in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78, BCP 79, and

Shouldn't that be www.rfc-editor.org ?

Apart from that, this seems consistent with reality.

    Brian

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> the RFC Editor has identified a problem with the current rights draft, 
> and has suggested a fix.
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:23:37 -0500

I suppose I'm being paranoid, but the notion of agreeing to/
depending on rights that are identified by a vague reference to
a web site makes me nervous.  The reference to "and at
www.rfc-editor.org" (with or without the "www.") would be a lot
more satisfactory if...

	* It was really a full URL, pointing to the text in
	question rather than to a general site or
	
	* It was to the site, but also included the name of the
	link or section that contained the relevant material and
	
	* The text including a phrase like "...as of the time of
	publication" and the web page material contained
	sufficiently detailed change history or tracking
	information that the status of the claims, rights, and
	permissions as of publication date could be accurately
	determined.

IPR assertions are not the right place for handwaving, or even
the appearance of handwaving.

    john

--On Wednesday, 15 December, 2004 08:47 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> the RFC Editor has identified a problem with the current
> rights draft, and has suggested a fix.
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:13:25 -0800

I fully agree with John's concerns.

A specific URL is needed, given that there is plenty of conflicting 
material at www.rfc-editor.org.

The information on the procedures is only relevant at the time of the 
publication of the RFC, given that the material at the specific URL 
is very likely to change over time.

Doing anything less than this may cause aggrieved RFC writers, or RFC 
readers, to point out our too-loose stance, possibly in a legal 
context.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:02:26 -0800 (PST)

Greetings,

I would suggest that the in lieu of just pointing to
www.rfc-editor.org the text should include a full URL.
Other than that, the fix looks fine.

Thanks,

Mike Heard

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:47:38 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> and has suggested a fix.  If nobody objects to this fix within a day or
> so, I'll tell them it's OK.
> 
> From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
> To: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, sob at harvard.edu, harald at
> alvestrand.no
> Cc: smb at research.att.com