Subject: Internet Draft Description - New Language?

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 05:53:04 -0700

Since you guys say I never actually do any of the work, how about this... I
was thinking that the issues with the ID's could possibly be constrained by
a couple of simple modifications - here is some proposed language from the
descriptions - You will all recognize its source. The re-write on it is
obviously not cut in stone, so feel free to whack at it.

BTW - I-D's dont need derivative licensing for use outside the IETF's
development and vetting process since they are introduction documents. That
is to say, since they are not formally referencable - the only license
needed outside of the IETFs free-internal use is to reproduce the I-D in its
entirety

TG.

Old Text:
---------
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.  It
is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as "work in progress."

New Text:
-----------
Internet-Drafts are internal exposure documents used to either introduce
Intellectual Properties formally to the IETF, or to update Initiatives
already underway within the IETF.  Internet-Drafts are published by the IETF
for a period of six months and may be revised, updated, replaced, or made
obsolete by other documents** at any time.

Unlike RFC's the use of Internet-Drafts are provided as part of an IETF
disclosure of new efforts, and no lincense in any form is granted.
Internet-Drafts are for disclosure of new technologies and efforts,
responding to RFC's with competitive ideas, or excerpting BCP's for existing
RFC's.

** Other Documents can be revisions of the I-D or other competitive I-D's or
external documents.

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:11:58 +0200

Your understanding of what I-Ds are departs considerably from what they 
are used as in the IETF.

Some I-Ds are introduction documents. Most are not.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 11:33:31 -0400

> Some I-Ds are introduction documents. Most are not.

And even if only temporary they are "published"

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:50:26 -0700

Scott
The IETF in publishing these documents needs no rights, it owns them
outright per the submission constraints. It can post them on its site with
the statement "(C) 2006 the IETF - All rights reserved" Anything that is a
part of the IETF's use and vetting model is covered under that. So any
internal use to the IETF needs no license per se.

Wow - no license needed for internal use... hows that for a shocker... So
then who needs licenses and why?

The only entities that need licenses are people not connected with the
IETF's processes who want to or need to republish these document for use
outside the IETF's processes. The problem is that it is this use outside the
IETF's processes that deminishes the value and control of any of the IETF's
IP's. So my question to this august group is who are those people and why
would they republish or excerpt I-D's? for what purpose?

There is a formal statement  and concept with the IETF that ID's are not
supposed to be referenced, and if that is really true and not just some
paste-on language to placate people, then it seems reasonable that any
license statement's would need to reflect that. i.e. that this IETF should
actually take some steps to implement that policy a needed. That being the
limiting of the I-D's republication releases to being for the IETF's use
only.

As to my closing commentary - It seems to me that the sole use of I-D's is
the formal introduction of Intellectual Property to the IETF. Whether it's
part of a new or ongoing effort doesnt matter, its the Ceremony that is used
to Wake the Oracle of the IETF to take notice of something"...

That said can anyone add other uses that dont ultimately boil down to
introducing IP to the IETF's process?

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 11:12:20 -0700

In response to this comment Harald -

Harald -
The submission of an ID is a mechanical apparatus used to get the Publishing
Desk to take notice of something and that is really what it is. The
Publishers ID Template itself the naked structure for encapsulating content
in to submit to the publishing desk...

Now.. what was it I mised there? Why you submit it for publishing is a
totally different question as to what the I-D itself is. The question is
what rights those uses require if any outside of the IETF, and you keep
avoiding that question.

So what was it I missed Harald?

Todd

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:59:58 +0200

> So what was it I missed Harald?
Just about everything.

The submission of an I-D is not a "mechanical apparatus" - it is a 
procedure carried out by people.
There is no "Publishing Desk" - there is an IETF secretariat that 
carries out the procedure of I-D publishing.
There is no "Publishers ID Template" - there is required boilerplate.
And finally, the mechanics of I-D publication is not something that 
needs to determine the IPR issues we are trying to discuss here.

I see no relevant content in your contribution.

                  Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 06:32:21 -0700

Harald - you  really are obnoxious arent you? Your commentary makes this a
personal matter and is abusive in language. That abuse will stop
immediately.

As to the obnoxious  response you sent out - that is not an objective
answer. Its apparently more of how you personally react to being challanged
as to what you are up to. Either answer  the question specifically  or admit
that you DONT WANT TO ANSWER what uses any IETF Documents require outside of
the IETF's Standards Process, because this would expose the intents of some
PPL here to convert the IETF into an Open Source Arena which it isnt today!

So Harald - PUT UP OR SHUT UP - either define the specific uses and justify
the licenise requirements for each or admit that NO Licenses are necessary
within the IETF's Standards Framework beyond the IETF's Copyright, and the
ONLY REASON the IETF needs copyright protection  is to protect the IP from
"unauthoprized publication outside of the IETF's Standards Framework".

The purpose of the (C) is to protect the IP from being abuse by people who
dont own it. So ... Harald - what licenses specifically are necessary and
why???

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Internet Draft Description - New Language?

> procedure carried out by people.

Are you just totally incompetent Harald or is it you just like arguing with
me personally (WHICH we all know is clearly true by now)...

> carries out the procedure of I-D publishing.

HARALD - How is it that people submit media to the IETF???. They email it to
the Submissions Alias which is "the Publications Desk". So yes there is a
Publications Desk - it is the reception point for submissions to the IETF

> There is no "Publishers ID Template" - there is required boilerplate.

OH, yea?  then what the hell is the template attached to this mailing wise
guy?

> needs to determine the IPR issues we are trying to discuss here.

Yes it is and you are clearly part of what is screwing up what is going on
here - SO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS HARALD - What Rights are needed outside the
IETF and WHY...

> I see no relevant content in your contribution.

I see abuse in your response since it documents your gross incompentence in
operating as one of the managers, silent or otherwise, of the IETF's IP
fiasco. You may not like it Harald but answer the question or close this WG
down. WHAT RIGHTS AND LICENSES do PPL outside of the IETF need against the
IETF materials to participate in the IETF's Standards Process???

Any I am bettiing in your grossly neglegent manner that you will NOT answer
this question until this matter gets into a court of law assbite where it is
headed if you dont formally answer this question. WHAT FRICKEN RIGHTS DOES
ANYONE NEED OUTSIDE OF THE IETF'S process.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:25:43 +0200

>personal matter and is abusive in language. That abuse will stop
I was pointing out the fact that you use words to describe the IETF 
process that do not match what anyone else is saying about it.

If you wish to communicate with other IETF participants, use the 
terminology that the IETF uses for its functions.

I do not see any reason for participants to use resources on figuring 
out whether or not your unique terminology has any relationship to the 
processes and procedures that the IETF is in fact following. Either use 
terminology that corresponds to what other people use, or shut up.

                          Harald Alvestrand

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:45:24 -0700

Harald -the creation of IETF Speak - that being a formal lexicon of Terms Of
Art which are different than those uses of the same terms is one of the
biggest problems with the IETF and its participants.

I personally believe that the TOA's are not noted as TOA's because the IETF
seems to think its the only people that do things like publish documents for
external commentary. And also that most people here dont get that they
cannot change formally what something means without disclosing and then
referencing the TOA definition. This is of course the reasoning for CAPPING
WORDS that are redefined formally like MUST and SHOULD for instance.

That said, whether you like it or not the ISOC editors that receive all
incoming documentation for parsing and Filing Requirement Compliance
analysis, is the Publications Desk submissions interface to the IETF. You
can call it whatever you personally want and that doesn't change that 'An
Editor' Station in commercial printing is generally referred to as a
"Desk" - like in newspapers for instance, the City Editor's position is
formally referred to as the "City Desk"...

So... that said, my analogies are not wrong or the wrong language.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Internet Draft Description - New Language?

> todd glassey wrote:
>
> >Harald - you  really are obnoxious aren't you? Your commentary makes this
a

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:01:49 -0400

Hi,

I have tried hard to just stay out of any conversation including Todd,
but I think this one deserves comment.

Todd, I don't know whether you do not understand how the IETF actually
works, or you choose to describe it using your own ideas of how it
works, but that the use of non-standard terminology makes it very hard
for others to understand whether your points are worthwhile or not.

To my knowledge, there is no "publishing desk" in the IETF. 
To my knowledge, there is no "Publisher's ID template" in the IETF.
I concur that the I-D publication procoess is not a "mechanical
apparatus".
And I concur that the "mechanics" of I-D publication is not what the
IPR WG should be focusing on.

I have taken the time to walk through some of your comments, and in
general, I find that your approach of refusing to properly understand
the IETF process leads you to make erroneous assumptions and proposals
that are not really relevant to this WG.

I also find that the tremendous number of posts you make, ignoring
most feedback except to fight with Harald, makes it a real waste of my
time and the time of others to follow this WG's mailing list. I really
do wish that you would just stop posting to this list so the WG
members can try to get some real work done.

As a WG chair, I consider the manner in which Harald responded to be
appropriate for a WG chair. He pointed out that you did not put your
proposal into terminology consistent with the description of IETF
processes that has been accepted by consensus of the IETF community,
and that you should use IETF terminology. This is the type of
communication I would use when trying to explain to a poster why their
posting is not useful, and how they could improve their postings to
make them more useful.

I also find your postings in response to Harald insulting and
incendiary and totally inappropriate.

Please stop.

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
Standards Manager, IP OAM and Security
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
North American Division

> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:32 AM
> To: Harald Alvestrand; todd glassey
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > > The submission of an ID is a mechanical apparatus used to get
the
> Publishing
> > > Publishers ID Template itself the naked structure for 
> encapsulating
> content