Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:15:02 -0500

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		: Rights Contributors provide to the IETF Trust
	Author(s)	: S. Bradner, J. Contreras
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-03.txt
	Pages		: 14
	Date		: 2007-11-16
	
The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are
   designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to
   the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to
   retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF
   policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes
   the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This memo
   obsoletes RFC 3978 and 4748 and, with RFC 3979 and RFC xxx
   (-outgoing), replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-03.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-03.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-03.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:43:09 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-03.txt

I've brought this up before, but I don't recall seeing an answer, so,
considering that the title of section 3 is:

  3. Exposition of Why These Procedures Are the Way They Are

Is the intention that the section is normative or informative?

The problem with the section right now is that it gives the impression
of being an informative explanation of rules explained and described
elsewhere, but some of the discussions in section 3 aren't anywhere near
as detailed anywhere else.  Thus it seems it is likely that section 3
may be considered as normative.  In that view, I think the title of
section is confusing.

Generally, it seems important to make clarify which parts of a document
is normative and which parts are informative.  Take this issue as a
general request to clarify that throughout the documents.

/Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:27:39 +0100

> Is the intention that the section is normative or informative?
 From section 2, fourth paragraph:

  Section 1 provides definitions used in these policies.  Sections 3
   and 4 of this document explain the rationale for these provisions.
   Only sections 5 and 6 of this document are normative, the other
   sections are informative.  A companion document RFC 3979 [RFC3979]
   deals with rights, including possible patent rights, in technologies
   developed or specified as part of the IETF Standards Process. This
   document is not intended to address those issues.  This memo
   obsoletes RFC 3978 and 4748 and, with RFC 3979 and RFC
   xxx(-outgoing), replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.

> may be considered as normative.  In that view, I think the title of
It is the nature of explanations to be more detailed than what they 
explain, isn't it?
If you believe that there is material in sections 3 and 4 that should 
have been normative, please say so, with specific pointers.
> general request to clarify that throughout the documents.
Agreed, but I don't see an indication from you that this is not 
sufficiently clear.

Issue not entered into tracker.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:05:41 +0100

>   xxx(-outgoing), replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.

Thanks, somehow I missed that.

I would like to change my request to ask that section 1 is labeled as
normative as well.  It contains many critical definitions of terms, and
the rest of the normative text in section 5 and 6 doesn't make sense if
the definitions aren't normative.

> It is the nature of explanations to be more detailed than what they

Right, if the explanations do say the same thing as the rules.  That is
not certain to me, and that's why making sure which parts of the
document is normative and which are not is an important first step.  I
think that is resolved now.

> have been normative, please say so, with specific pointers.

If I find examples, I do that in my WGLC review.

/Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:05:25 +0100

I have assigned #1514 to this issue.