Subject: Summary of revised Last Call on draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:08:34 -0700

Now it's Friday....

The following opinions were voiced:

A - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-07
 Scott Brim (can accept B)
B - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00
 Brian Carpenter
 Bill Fenner
 Ted Hardie
 Scott Bradner (can accept A)
 Simon Josefsson
 Lucy Lynch
 John Klensin
C - I refuse to support either option
 Todd Glassey

Based on this tally, the chairs will send 
draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00 to the IESG for Last Call and approval.

A few problems have been noted with -trust-update:

- "changes" section is left over from previous version, not updated
- need to add RFC 4371 (BCP 101 Update for IPR Trust") to normative 
references, and refer to it in intro.

I'm hereby asking the editor to make those updates and submit a -01 
version, which the WG chairs will forward to the IESG.

                Harald

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:50:52 +0200

> draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00 to the IESG for Last Call and

I wish we could have a WGLC on the actual document first, though, but
maybe there is no time.  In any case, here are my comments on the
document.  If there is no time to address this before the Last Call,
I'll send them again later.

The document seems to go beyond changing "ISOC" into "IETF Trust",
which was what one of the chairs indicated earlier:

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

> If the WG is unhappy with this draft, we will proceed with
> draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00.txt instead, a draft that changes
> nothing but the ISOC->Trust text.

Specifically, the document also changes "IETF" to "IETF Trust" in
several places.  The definition of IETF is:

   a. "IETF":  In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
      individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
      lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
      initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general
      designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but
      solely to the extent of such participation.

The "IETF" is not the same as the "IETF Trust".  Changing the former
to the latter in the legalese modifies the rights granted directly to
IETF participants.

Those changes seems unwarranted and unrelated -- as far as I
understood, the urgency is that RFC 3978 no longer should refer to
ISOC, but instead reference the IETF Trust.

Specifically, the urgency was _not_ that the references to "IETF" was
problematic, so I believe we should not remove, in several places,
that term in the document, but defer that change to other IPR WG
decisions.

Therefor, I request that draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update should be
updated to only change "ISOC" and "Internet Society" to "IETF Trust".
Do not also change "IETF" into "IETF Trust".

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:56:10 -0700

Simon,

since you obviously have the documents in front of you:

can you quote the exact sentences in -trust-update you object to on this 
basis and the corresponding pieces of 3978, and send them to the list?

I remember some pieces of text where "IETF" really didn't make sense, 
but can't remember whether or not those were the ones that got changed.

Standard rant: If a message goes out with "Last Call" in the title and 
"B - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00" as one of its 
options, I have a hard time understanding that you claim that we haven't 
made a Last Call on the document....

                 Harald

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:33:18 +0200

Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> can you quote the exact sentences in -trust-update you object to on
> this basis and the corresponding pieces of 3978, and send them to the
> list?

The core of the problem is in section 2.2 and 2.4 of trust-update,
since that modify the legal language.  The rest follows from that
change.  Section 2.2 and 2.4 from trust-update:

,----
| 2.2. Update Section 3.3
| 
|    In section 3.3 replace two instances of "ISOC and the IETF" and one
|    instance of "IETF and ISOC" with "IETF Trust."
...
| 2.4. Update Section 4.2
|
|    In section 4.2 replace two instances of "ISOC and the IETF" and one
|    instance of "IETF and ISOC" with "IETF Trust."
`----

RFC 3978 3.3 reads:

   a. To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is
      protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the
      Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization
      he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant a
      perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
      right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual
      property rights in the Contribution:
...
      (C) unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a
          Contribution [as per Section 5.2 below], to prepare derivative
          works (other than translations) that are based on or
          incorporate all or part of the Contribution, or comment upon
          it, within the IETF Standards Process.  The license to such
          derivative works not granting the ISOC and the IETF any more
          rights than the license to the original Contribution,
...
   b. The Contributor grants the IETF and ISOC permission to reference
      the name(s) and address(es) of the Contributor(s) and of the
      organization(s) s/he represents or is sponsored by (if any).

And 4.2 reads:

   a. To the extent that an RFC Editor Contribution or any portion
      thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship,
      the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the
      organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any)
      grant a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free,
      world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all
      intellectual property rights in the RFC Editor Contribution for at
      least the life of the Internet-Draft:
...
      (C) unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in an
          RFC Editor Contribution (as per Section 5.2 below), to prepare
          derivative works (other than translations) that are based on
          or incorporate all or part of the RFC Editor Contribution, or
          comment upon it.  The license to such derivative works not
          granting the ISOC and the IETF any more rights than the
          license to the original RFC Editor Contribution, and
...
   b. The Contributor grants the IETF and ISOC permission to reference
      the name(s) and address(es) of the Contributor(s) and of the
      organization(s) s/he represents or is sponsored by (if any).

I see no problem in saying "IETF and IETF Trust" in all of these
places.

The current text in trust-update modifies the license, and removes
rights granted to "IETF".  That is not a editorial modification.

If the urgency was the references to ISOC, using "IETF and IETF Trust"
shouldn't be a problem.

There are two minor parts too, mostly as a consequence to the above
change:

,----
| 2.1. Update introduction
| 
|    In the third paragraph of Section 1 replace "IETF and Internet
|    Society (ISOC)" with "IETF Trust" and replace "IETF and ISOC" with
|    "IETF Trust."
`----

First, there is a typo here, "Section 1" should be "Section 2".
Section 2 in RFC 3978 contains:

   In order for works to be used within the IETF Standards Process or to
   be published as Internet-Drafts, certain limited rights in all
   Contributions must be granted to the IETF and Internet Society
   (ISOC).  In addition, Contributors must make representations to IETF
   and ISOC regarding their ability to grant these rights.

I believe it would be more accurate to say "IETF" and "IETF Trust"
here, if the changes to 2.2/2.4 above is implemented.

,----
| 2.9. Update Section 7.1
| 
|    In Section 7.1, replace two instances of "IETF/ISOC" with "IETF
|    Trust".
`----

Section 7.1 reads:

   The IETF/ISOC must obtain the right to publish an IETF Contribution
   as an RFC or an Internet-Draft from the Contributors.
...
   The authors retain all other rights, but cannot withdraw the above
   rights from the IETF/ISOC.

Here, dropping "IETF" also seems wrong.

> but can't remember whether or not those were the ones that got

Agreed, in some places it doesn't make sense, but in the above places,
I believe it makes sense.  "IETF" and "IETF Trust" are not the same
legal entity.  The outgoing rights from the IETF Trust aren't clear to
me, but presumably they aren't the same as those granted to the "IETF"
in RFC 3978, and if so, mentioning both makes sense.

> "B - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00" as one of
> its options, I have a hard time understanding that you claim that we
> haven't made a Last Call on the document....

The WGLC was for draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update, which was what the title
indicated.  There were no explicit request for comments on
trust-update, and being on vacation, I didn't review the document, but
took Steven's word for that it only updated ISOC->IETF Trust.

I read the second last call as a last call on the decision on which
document we should move forward with, and not a last call on getting
comments on the document.  There is a subtle difference.

Since the first call suggested that trust-update only changed "ISOC"
into "IETF Trust", people may have assumed that trust-update did
nothing more, and didn't review it further.

An explicit WGLC on trust-update would have helped getting more review
of trust-update (at least I know that I would have read the document
earlier), but I understand that the time pressure didn't permit this.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:05:38 +0200

In any case the Trust exists solely for the benefit of the IETF,
so it's inconceivable that the Trust would fail to grant all
necessary rights to participants. I would expect to get fired
as a Trustee if we got that wrong. However, I would like to
see Simon's specific instances.

     Brian