Subject: Addressing concerns with -incoming and the streams definition

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:47:35 +0200

Scott,

to address the IESG's concerns about the definition of streams, can you 
please make the following modifications to the -incoming documents?

- in section 1, add to the definition in (f) (IETF documents) an 
informative note saying "This is identical to the "IETF stream" defined 
in [RFC 4844]".
- in section 1, change definition "m" (RFC Editor documents) to 
"Non-IETF documents"

- Change section 4 from:
4.  RFC Editor Documents
   This document only relates to Contributions made as part of the IETF
   Standards Process.  Other documents that are referred to as Internet-
   Drafts and RFCs may be submitted to and published by the RFC Editor
   independently of the IETF Standards Process.  Such "RFC Editor
   Documents" are not covered by this document.  RFC Editor
   Contributions must be marked appropriately as described in the Legend
   Instructions.  See the RFC Editor web page for information about the
   policies concerning rights in RFC Editor Documents.

to:

4. Non-IETF documents

   This document only relates to Contributions made as part of the IETF
   Standards Process  Other documents that are referred to as Internet-
   Drafts and RFCs may be submitted to and published by the RFC Editor
   independently of the IETF Standards Process.  Such documents are not
   covered by this document, unless the controlling entity for that document
   stream, as described in [RFC 4844] chooses to apply these rules.  
Non-IETF
   Contributions must be marked appropriately as described in the Legend
   Instructions.  See the RFC Editor web page for information about the
   policies concerning rights in RFC Editor Documents; for other document
   streams, the controlling entity must be contacted.
   See Section (??8??) for a declaration from the IAB on this matter.

And then insert an extra section very late (it should be an appendix):
(the header below is approximate; you can get the original from the list)
------------------------------------
8. Declaration from the IAB

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: 04-04-2008 08:34
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Documents

Colleagues,

The IAB discussed the IPR documents during its most recent call. It 
unanimously decided that the IAB-stream is to be covered by the incoming 
IPR document.  It is our understanding that the iab-stream documents IPR 
are then automatically covered by the outbounds rights that the IETF 
trust will establish based on the advice in draft-ietf-ipr-outbound rights.

We also want to stress that for any change in the inbound rights for 
streams other than the ietf- and iab-stream there needs to be a stream 
dependent discussion and approval process as indicated in RFC 4844 "The 
RFC Series and RFC Editor"  section 4.2.3.

To that extent section 4 of the draft should explicitly mention that the 
irtf-, the independent- and any possible future streams are not covered 
by the draft.

For the IAB,

Olaf Kolkman

-------------------------

Is this doable, soon?

If this is OK with the WG, we should have the documents in front of the IESG for approval soon.

                 Harald

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:26:53 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> If this is OK with the WG

+1 for the change (insert disclaimer about me not
liking the rules about citing code examples, and
missing an opportunity to say "CC-BY-SA" whenever 
authors want it)

 Frank

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:28:41 +1200

> If this is OK with the WG

It works for me, at least. I suspect the IAB statement may
need some editing to fit the flow of the document, as long as
the IAB chair agrees with the edits.

   Brian