Subject: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-00.txt

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:38:13 -0500

As described by Harald, this draft is currently merely an 
outline.  And even the structure may change as the working group 
consensus appears.  If I have made errors in what little content I 
did put in, please let me know on the working group list.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern, Ed.

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights 
>Working Group of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Advice to the IAOC on Rights to be 
> Granted in IETF RFCs
>         Author(s)       : J. Halpern
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-00.txt
>         Pages           : 7
>         Date            : 2006-3-4
>
>The IASA is resposible for managing intellectual property rights on
>behalf of the IETF.  This includes the license to copy, implement and
>otherwise use IETF contributions, among them Internet-Drafts and
>RFCs.  The IASA takes direction from the IETF regarding the rights to
>be granted.  This document describes the desires of the IETF
>regarding rights granted in IETF contributions.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-00.txt

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:47:17 +0100

I'd like to raise a potential issue for the tracker, given the
Mankin/Klensin thread on the IETF general list, and the following
sentence in the introduction of Joel's draft:

  This includes copyrights in IETF Internet-Drafts and RFCs.

I believe we have established that the copyright statement in I-Ds and
RFC only refer to the boiler plate.  The IPR Trust doesn't hold a
copyright on the content.

Discussing this issue in the FAQ on the IETF and RFC editor pages
would also be a good idea.  It would also be useful to explain when
the year in that copyright message has to be updated.

I believe we could open and close this issue quickly, to have
something to reference when this issue comes up later on.

Suggested proposed resolution:

  The copyright claim in I-Ds and RFCs refer to the boiler plate
  (e.g., sections "Status of this Memo" and "Intellectual Property").
  The copyright of the content remains with the authors of the text
  (which may include more than the authors specified on the title
  page).

Thanks,
Simon

"Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> writes:

> As described by Harald, this draft is currently merely an outline.
> And even the structure may change as the working group consensus
> appears.  If I have made errors in what little content I did put in,
> please let me know on the working group list.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern, Ed.
>
>>         Title           : Advice to the IAOC on Rights to be Granted
>> in IETF RFCs
>>         Author(s)       : J. Halpern

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:11:05 -0500

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:47:17 +0100

> copyright on the content.

<chair hat=off>
The intent of the copyright statement on I-Ds is *precisely* to turn
over certain rights to it.  There have been incidents where an I-D
author, when told by the WG to make changes he didn't like, refused and
threatened a lawsuit for copyright infringement if his text was used.
Needless to say, this was a major setback for the WG.

I-Ds can have three different forms of copyright notice, granting
different rights.  It's the general policy that WG drafts (as opposed
to individual submissions) must use the form that turns over more
rights to the IETF.  If an individual submission were to be accepted as
a WG document but with the wrong copyright boilerplate, it would have
to be resubmitted by the author -- no one else has the authority --
with the proper boilerplate.

Put another way, this rule was instantiated precisely because we'd
learned the hard way that there was a problem.
</chair>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:35:15 +0100

"Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]> writes:

> over certain rights to it.

What rights?  On what, the technical content?

> There have been incidents where an I-D author, when told by the WG
> to make changes he didn't like, refused and threatened a lawsuit for
> copyright infringement if his text was used.  Needless to say, this
> was a major setback for the WG.
>

I'm more confused now.  I read Harald's post

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg03671.html

as if there were no copyright transfer.

Perhaps the copyright statements indicate that the boiler plates are
protected, and that the rest of the content is published after
acquiring certain non-exclusive rights (through NOTE WELL)?  That
would be one way to interpret both your posts without any conflict.

It seem like explaining exactly what the copyright statement in I-D's
and RFC's cover, and how the rights to those works were transferred to
the IPR Trust, would be useful.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:49:40 -0500

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:35:15 +0100

> the IPR Trust, would be useful.

I'm referring to Sections 5.2 and especially 5.3 of RFC 3978.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:54:23 -0500

Be careful of the word "transfer".

Nothing the IETF has asked for asks the author to give up their copyright.
However, the IETF, in order to produce its standards, needs a set of 
copy rights (i.e. a copyright).
The copyright references in the boilerplate are intended to grant the 
IETF the necessary rights.  For example, we have to be able to 
publish the document so that anyone can copy it in full.  We have to 
be able to modify the document, using the existing words.

As Steve said, the wording was introduced after an incident in which 
someone tried to withdraw the ability for the IETF to use his words 
after teh working group reached a consensus he was not happy with.

None of this requires a transfer of the copyright ownership.  The 
author does not lose his copyright.  But rights are granted to the 
IETF.  And, with the current structure, such rights are vested in the 
IPR Trust and managed by the trustees (who are also the IAOC.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:23:21 -0800

Steven - is it possible that there was no problem - and the IETF's use of
the media was covered under the Copyright Act's Research Exemption??? This
is very important since what it says is that there was no threat for this
instance as you cite here...

... but the real issue this IETF has to deal with is why such a stand-off
occured in the WG and clearly demonstrates why peer-based review processes
dont work in global and open standards. People are just not willing to play
by the rules if they think the can score faster or what not - if you doubt
this look around the hiways of the world for a perfect example.

The point is Steven what happened was that while the copyright was the
public claim - by the time the matter got to court the Complaint would have
been amended to read something closer to Tortuous Interference... Which IMHO
would have possibly been actionable, depending on what sparked this
stand-off in the WG.

As to the IETF; it had no exposure in my book because the individual who
submitted the material knew what they were getting in for, and to they
contracted the IETF to make those mods by the act of the submission alone,
what they could have sued the IETF for is in not allowing the vetting.

There is more to this though and that is in figuring exactly what is to
happen with these standards candidate initiatives and what republishing then
need, BUT ONLY for that purpose.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:53:46 +0100

>sentence in the introduction of Joel's draft:
I have created ticket #1212 to track this issue.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 03:01:59 -0800

Is there a ticket to track specifically what CR rights are needed and which
arent - Also there is a need under US Copyright Law for a wet signature on
an exclusive transfer of any rights. We need a ticket to track that issue as
well.

Todd

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:50:42 +0100

> copy rights (i.e. a copyright).

FWIW, I've learned that how to explains this concept much clearer is
to say that the IETF want to claim a copyright on the collective work.
That is a well-established term in copyright law, and is what
magazines and books use.

> IETF the necessary rights.

A nit-pick, but may be important: I believe the copyright claim
doesn't grant the IETF those rights, instead, the claim is present to
signal to readers that the IETF holds a copyright on the collective
work.  Granting the necessary rights to do that were done when the
author contributed the document to the IETF.

> For example, we have to be able to publish the document so that
> anyone can copy it in full.  We have to be able to modify the
> document, using the existing words.

The copyright claim in documents doesn't have anything to do with this
though, as far as I can tell.  Those rights must be part of what the
author agreed to, and with Scott's update, they seem to be.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:18:34 -0800

Fine...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: ISSUE? What does the copyright claim in I-D/RFCs mean?

> to say that the IETF want to claim a copyright on the collective work.

Which collective work - that which was submitted through the Editors (the
Editor's changing anything or reviewing for change) makes the submitted work
a collective genesis - of the submitter and the Editors.

> author contributed the document to the IETF.

No they weren't if the Exclusive Conveyance of any copyright takes a wet
signature...

> > document, using the existing words.

For what purpose? - for creating a standard? OK - for creating another
commercial product? maybe not...

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:03:18 +0100

> No they weren't if the Exclusive Conveyance of any copyright takes a wet

The IETF doesn't appear to need a exclusive copyright.  A
non-exclusive copyright can be acquired without a wet signature, see:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:26:13 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: ISSUE? What does the copyright claim in I-D/RFCs mean?

> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc

I have, and I disagree - the reasoning is that the IETF needs to be able to
control its own IP - without exclusivity, the requirements and who owns
what - are muddy at best. The IETF needs to have absolute control on the IP
being moved through its framework, whether that means that the IETF gives it
all away later or not, which by the way is a management decision and not
particular to the framework itself in reality. Here is that particular body
of text from the  link above.[NOTICE the portion of the first sentence where
it starts "but the transfer of exclusive"... also note the closing "Although
recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties, it
does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the
transfer as against third parties" which brings into focus what has to
happen to allow ANYONE to rely on the use of these documents or the IP in
them] - the text of the US Government's Copyright.GOV Website:
-----
TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT
Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of
those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not
valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the
rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right
on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.

A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed
by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate
succession.

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various
state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or
transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of
business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office
does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the
recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership.
Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the
parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to
validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on
recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request
Circular 12, "Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents."

-----

My understanding, although I may be wrong, is that the IETF requires
exclusive rights in all matters or it cannot control the processes. It
requires exclusive rights to any and all submissions per RFC2026, BCP78 and
other documents as well. It requires sole exclusive use and rights to
anything submitted in its Style Templates for I-D's or RFC's or any other
documents it intend's to republish.

So if that is true, then this matter is not arguable really - the real issue
is what this means to EVERY SINGLE IETF Standard on the books already and to
all those RFC owners. By my take its a can of worms at best but it can like
all of the rest of this IP issue-crap, be dealt with.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:42:19 -0800

Simon - good  try... and in working the logic of this out I discovered
something new - thanks for that! - as it happens I may have been wrong in my
drawing  for bubble #1, that is to say that I am beginning to think that the
Submitter probably doesn't own the IP they file with the IETF alone, it is
rather a joint property of the Submitter/Sponsor and the IETF/ISOC for the
use of the Submitter/Sponsor's IP and the IETF's Template.

This MUST be reviewed by lawyers!
-------------------------------------
Let me start by saying that I AM NOT A LAWYER and these are matters of law,
but it is my understanding of the law that when an IETF Submission is made
by virtue of the fact it is recast into the framework of an IETF template,
it is a collaborative work and no longer the sole property of the submitter.
That is to say, at the time of submission that the IP controlled under the
copyright belongs to both parties - the IETF and the submitter.

The IETF also has a formal stage-process in the work-flow that is the IP
Submission process called "Editor's Review".  The net of this argument boils
down to "that because there is a new derivative work filed with the IETF in
the form of any and all submissions, that when the Submitter cedes their
rights to the IETF that becomes or creates within the IETF/ISOC "an
exclusive right" then of the IETF too ...since it already owns the other
half of the rights.

You get my point I hope - according to the US Copyright page any and all
exclusive rights MUST be conveyed on paper whether, they are created by
merging a set of limited rights into a larger set of exclusive rights or are
exclusively owned by one party from the gate.

Here is the detail of the claim:

The IETF's Templates represent real IP
---------------------------------------
Another interesting fact is that the IETF's part of the bargain for the
collaborative work - the templates for RFC's and ID's represents protectable
IP at a number of levels.  Including oddly enough a patent capability since
a MS WORD template can be reduced to a metafile it is a programming language
and constitutes a program implementation which is to say, a document
framework, under the official description of IP under Title 35,  is a
patentable set of code and so legitimately qualifies as IP...

The fact that this exists in the process and that there is a template and a
form to the publications of the IETF's RFC's likely makes them a
collaborative effort no matter what.

SubmittersIP + IETF Template IP = New Submission... New Derivative Work of
the SubmittersIP

Exclusive Conveyance
-----------------------
The problem is the concept of exclusivity only pertains to those parts of
the IP for which you may grant exclusivity... So when the Submitter grants
the IETF rights to reproduce its portions of the collaborative draft in any
form without needing to get ongoing permissions from the Submitter/Sponsor,
and  which is to be used for any purposes per the commentaries of BCP78's
section 3.3.a(e)  - those constitute its exclusive conveyance of its rights
since the Submitter does not control the other half of the publication
rights. The real problem is BCP789's 3.3.a(e) gives it all away!

The analysis
-------------
What this all boils down to is that under Copyright Act's control's any and
all submissions to the IETF constitute exclusive releases against the
submitters rights to the Collaborative Workproduct, not the Submitter's IP
itself. The collaborative workproduct being the combination of the
Submitter's IP, and the IETF's submission framework. A release against the
core  IP submitted in the IETF Framework would be a different instrument and
doesn't appear to exist in the IETF's framework...

I reiterate - this must be reviewed by lawyers
---------------------------------------------
Let me finish here by saying that although I am not a lawyer and as such
cannot render a formal legal opinion, my reading of this requirement is that
per the statements of the US Government, the submission of any and all ID's
and RFC's whether for Standards Track or BCP Track use or just for
informational purposes, requires a written release and not an emailed one...
sorry.

The question that this WG has to deal with is whether this is an issue
because a Judge is in my opinion likely to rule that since the IETF is not
openly allowing anyone to use and reprint its templates for other purposes
outside the IETF's operations, that what is happening here is  an exclusive
transfer of the Submitter's Collaborative Rights to the Derivative work of
their own IP...

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:52:24 -0500

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:42:19 -0800

> Let me start by saying that I AM NOT A LAWYER and these are matters of law,

Todd -- you're right; you're not a lawyer, and we have ample evidence
that the lawyers on this list don't agree with you.  You're also one of
the most frequent posters to the list.  Here are the (manually
compiled) statistics for posting since March 1:

   1 Allison Mankin    
   1 Frank Ellermann   
   1 Fred Baker        
   1 IESG Secretary    
   2 Internet-Drafts@i 
   2 John C Klensin    
   4 "Bill Fenner"     
   4 Steven M. Bellovin
   5 "Joel M. Halpern" 
   6 "Contreras, Jorge 
   6 Harald Alvestrand 
   7 Simon Josefsson   
  11 Brian E Carpenter 
  22 "todd glassey"

Please (a) slow down your posting rate, and (b) get competent legal
advice before propounding your theories.  (Aside: I had an interesting
and illuminating experience the other day.  I made a legal comment, in a
room with several computer scientists and a knowledgeable lawyer.  The
conclusion I drew was surprising and upsetting to all of us, even the
lawyer, so he checked with another lawyer.  It turns out that my
intepretation *had been* correct.  However, another statute, passed 10
years after the one I cited, nullified -- but didn't explicitly repeal
-- the section I was quoting.  The new section was in a different title
of the U.S. code, and was passed for reasons entirely unrelated to my
concerns.  There's a moral here -- ask a real lawyer.)

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:55:04 -0800

- Stated as a "private-citizen" disclaimer -

My apologies for posting so many times - I will watch the number of posts...
As to your ludicrous commentary -

Yo Bellovin - you crack me up - So far it is you who are wrong - no attorney
on this list has specifically said that I was wrong because they all know
its "a game of curves", and where you fall on the curve in distance from the
letter of the law is usually the determining factor whether the Court
bothers with you... that means one can do things that are weaker and weaker
under contract law or outside the terms of the agreement until you actually
do something that is far enough outside the scope of the agreement or the
constraining law or so egregious that one of the parties decides that
litigation or a legal complaint is the answer...

It true - the IETF's IP conveyance processes are weak at best - and I am
saying that these are not sufficient for the exclusive conveyance of IP and
your employer would agree with that I bet, so why not the IETF? Oh yeah -
the added cost - that's right.... I guess the IETF knows that ANYTHING that
changes how it does business now has a cost and it has no way of absorbing
that cost, so we have a dilemma.

Anytime any of the Attorney's want to put their credential behind a a formal
opinion  that I am wrong, then at that time you can say what your saying
Steve, but not until then.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: exclusive vs. non-exclusive releases... and the requirement for
a wet signature on IP submissions.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:50:35 +0100

>         Advice to the IAOC on Rights to be Granted in IETF RFCs

The IPR WG charter says that this document should talk about 'IETF
contributions'.  That is not the same as IETF RFCs.

The IPR WG charter says the advice should be given to the IETF Trust,
not the IAOC.

>    be granted.

I have not studied RFC 4071 carefully, but it seem to me that the IASA
doesn't formally take directions from the IETF.  The only formal
relationship that I could find was that the IAOC is accountable for
the IASA.

>    This document describes the desires of the IETF regarding rights
>    granted in IETF contributions.

I suggest clarifying "rights" to "outbound rights", otherwise I get
the impression that this document will talk about inbound rights.

> 1.  Introduction
>
>    Under the current operational and administrative structures, IETF
>    intellectual property rights are vested in a trust administered by a
>    board of trustees made up of the members of the IASA.

It may be useful to include the name of the trust here.

>    This includes copyrights in IETF Internet-Drafts and RFCs.  The
>    IASA is therefore responsible for defining the rights to copy
>    granted to people who wish to make use of the material in these
>    documents.

This suggest that the IASA is the sole responsible organization for
that decision.  To avoid giving the impression that other
organizations does not have similar rights, I suggest clarifying
"copyrights" to "non-exclusive copyrights".

>    The IASA has indicated, as is consistent with the IETF structure,
>    that it will respect the wishes of the IETF in regard to what these
>    rights ought to be.

Shouldn't this be the IPR Trust?  The formal relationship between
various organizations are unclear to me.  Is there a graph or
something that explain it?  RFC 4071 isn't written in a way to make it
easy to understand the formal relationships.

>    It is therefore the IETFs responsibility to articulate those
>    wishes.  This document represents the wishes of the IETF
>    regarding RFCs, until it is superceded.

What about I-D's?  The charter talks about "IETF contributions", not
RFCs.  I believe it is important to have clear rules for I-D's too,
because frequently I-D's are widely implemented even if they never are
adopted as RFCs.  (One example of this that I've been involved in is
PEAP.)

> 2.  Requirements notation
>
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in [1].
>
>    This section is retained for now in case it turns out that these
>    terms are needed.  If, as seems likely to the editor, these are not
>    needed, the section and the normative reference will be removed.

RFC 2119 is for technical standards-track documents.  This is neither
standards-track nor technical.

> 3.  Purpose in Granting Rights
>
>    In providing a description of the wishes of the IETF with regard to
>    rights granted in RFCs, it is helpful to keep in mind the purpose of
>    granting such rights.
>
>    The IETF exists to provide standards which are helpful to the good
>    operation of the Internet.

I agree with Brian that we should cite RFC 3935 here.

>    These standards are published as RFCs.  These publications
>    primary value is in the ability of implementors to build
>    solutions (products, software, etc) using these standards which
>    interoperate.

Again, what about I-D's?  I suggest using "Contributions" because that
is what the charter says we should focus on.

>    Hence, the IETF has a strong interest in seeing accurate,
>    interoperable implementations of the material we publish.  We
>    grant rights to copy to people to make use of the text in the
>    RFCs in order to encourage accurate and interoperable
>    implementations.

This give a false impression that RFCs can be used freely in
implementations, which is not the case.

> 3.1.  Specific Issues
>
>    There are a number of specific concerns that have been raised over
>    time, which this document acknowledges and addresses.
>
>    [Editor's note: Concerns go here.]

Consider copying the issues that I explained in my draft.

This seem to be one of the more important sections, and I find it
somewhat worrying that it has been left as a TBA.

> 4.  Powers and Authority
>
>    As stated in the introduction, the legal authority for determining
>    and granting rights to copy in RFCs rests with the trustees for the
>    IETF trust, which is made up of the members of the IASA.  This
>    document provides guidance to that body, based on the rough consensus
>    of the IETF.

Here it says that this document give guidance to the IETF Trust, which
seem more correct.  The introduction said IASA.  Perhaps it is better
to avoid repeating these procedural stuff and focus on the problems
and solutions.

>    The IASA, in conjunction with legal counsel has the authority and
>    responsibility to determine the exact copyright text needed in
>    Internet-Drafts and RFCs to meet these needs.

Again, please use the RFC 3978 "IETF Contribution" terminology.

> 5.  Recommended Grants of Right to Copy
>
>    In principle, different grants of rights to copy can be granted to
>    individuals based on the purpose or use being made, and the
>    particular material being copied.  This section contains subsections
>    for each such different grant that is currently envisioned.  Each
>    section is intended to describe a particular problem / situation /
>    usage, to describe how that situation is recognizable, and to provide
>    guidance to the IASA as to what rights the IETF would like to see
>    granted in that circumstances, and what limitations should be put on
>    such granting.

Because the lack of substance in this section, it is difficult to
infer exactly what is intended here.  I worry that the IASA would
interpret this as distinct requests, and craft custom legal language
for each request.  That would be quite confusing and unfortunate.

>    In structuring these desires, it is to be kept in mind that the autor
>    has not given up his copyright in granting rights to the IETF, and
>    the IETF is not attempting to transfer or relinquish the rights it
>    has.  The purpose is to enable to IASA to grant people the right to
>    make copies of material in RFCs in ways that fit the goals of the
>    IETF.

Great, that is very informative!  Perhaps this point could be made
even earlier in the document.

>    [Editors note: This structure will likely change as working group
>    consens emerges on the rights to be granted.]
>
> 5.1.  Rights Grented for Reproduction of RFCs
>
>    It has long been IETF policy to encourage copying of RFCs in full.
>    This permits wide dissemination of the material, without risking loss
>    of context or meaning.  The IETF wishes to continue to permit anyone
>    to make full copies of RFCs.

Agreed.

> 5.2.  Rights Granted for Quoting from RFCs
>
> 5.3.  Rights Granted for Implementing based on RFCs
>
> 5.4.  Rights Granted for use of text from RFCs

I look forward to reviewing these critical sections.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:28:11 -0500

A number of well taken and useful comments on the draft.  Thank you Simon.
With regard to this particular comment, I wanted to explain why I 
chose the wording I did.
My intent was to find words that did not prejudge the outcome of the 
working group discussions one way or another with regard to the 
specific issues which follow that section.  I am happy to change 
these if the working group can agree on some other words.

Yours,
Joel