Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:23:18 -0400 (EDT)

Simon sez:
  I get the feeling my issues have been ignored

your desire to have open source standards that anyone can modify 
is not being ignored but since that desire did not get general
support when it was discussed at the last ipr wg meeting that ability
was not included in this ID.

Simon further sez:
  The text suggest to me that IETF/ISOC has acquired
  the right to grant sublicenses.

"will acquire" (since this applies going forward, but basically correct

Simon ges on to say
   Third parties aren't even allowed to distribute un-modified RFCs
   from what I can tell. 

third parties have always had that right and nothing in this ID changes that

Scott

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

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:01:57 -0700 (PDT)

> third parties have always had that right and nothing in this ID

Where does 3978 actually say that?  Text explicitly permitting that
was in the copyright notices put into RFCs when 2026 was in force,
but it does not seem to have been carried forward.  (I do see that
the words "distribution of this memo is unlimited" are still being
put on the front page by the RFC Editor, but that's not mandated
by 3978, is it?)

//cmh

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:24:37 +0200

> was not included in this ID.

Reading the minutes of the last IPR meeting, I don't see support for
the opposite position either.  There is a long discussion that ends
with "No clear consensus in the room. Discuss it on the mailing
list.".

To simplify a consensus process, I could prepare a proposed update of
BCP78 that describe the two problems I believe I have identified, and
how I would want to fix them.  It is easier to decide between two
proposals than one proposal and some objections to that proposal.

> "will acquire" (since this applies going forward, but basically correct

Agreed, right.

> third parties have always had that right and nothing in this ID changes that

Can you point me to the exact chapter and verse that give me those
right?

Remember, the rights in 3.3(a) and 4.2(a) are only granted to the
IETF/ISOC, not to third parties.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT)

[ Resent; apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate ]

> third parties have always had that right and nothing in this ID

Where does 3978, or draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt, explicitly
say that third parties have that right?

The copyright language used when 2026 was in force DID say that
explicitly, but as far as I am able to tell that language was not
carried over into 3667, 3978, or draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt.
Granted, RFCs do have the language "distribution of this memo is
unlimited" on the front page but that is put there by the RFC Editor
and is not called out by the IETF IPR rules.

On a related note, I have not been able to find any language that
permits third parties to extract unmodified MIB modules from RFCs
for separate use.  RFC 3978 grants this right to the IETF, but not
to anyone else, and while the draft allows the IETF to grant third
parties this right, that does not go far enough:  this is something
that people need to be able to do to use the MIB modules as
intended, and it should be the default.

If I've misinterpreted 3978 or the draft with respect to either of
these points I would like a pointer to the chapter and verse showing
me that I am wrong.

//cmh