Subject: IPR WG Documents Completed Last Call

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:12:23 -0400

Harald:

IETF Last Call has finished for both -incoming and -outgoing.  I have 
just reread all of the Last Call comments, and I think that there is 
only one change that is needed before the documents can proceed to 
IESG evaluation.  The documents need to be clear that they apply to 
the IETF Stream and that the IAB has chosen for them to apply to the 
IAB Stream as well.  The IRTF Stream and the Independent Stream may 
in the future choose this approach or a different one.

Russ

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:07:45 +0200

Russ:

to clarify - the documents need to say that they apply to the IETF stream 
(by virtue of having been approved by the IESG).
The decision to make them apply to the IAB stream is an IAB decision, and 
the IAB could theoretically unmake that decision at some later time, 
without affecting the IETF status of these documents.

Is it formally correct / prudent to document this in the documents 
themselves?

                             Harald

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:52:48 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: IPR WG Documents Completed Last Call

> (by virtue of having been approved by the IESG).

No - they need to say that they are formally approved as 'the new workflow' 
and that they retire the previous document's. Further there needs to be a 
process for 'efforts' already started under other (the previous) workflow 
criteria since those processes being initiated under the previous process 
would be entitled to remain as such.

> without affecting the IETF status of these documents.

No its not. The IAB doesnt have the right to 'waive', or 'decline to 
implement' processes approved by the IETF and IESG or there is no culpable 
oversight for the IAB. That may be OK if the charter is to live outside the 
cuplability-chain that the rest of the IETF lives under.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:30:28 +1200

On the other hand, we do have documents defining IAB
stuff that are BCPs, including RFC 2850. So I can't
see any prohibition of making this part of the BCP,
as long as there is a minuted IAB decision as well
as an IESG decision.

   Brian