Subject: Re: Comment on 'derivative works'

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:31:56 -0400

Having used Let me options 2 or 3 for things that were intended
as personal opinion statements unless a WG (or something else)
decided to pick them up, let's try another cut at this.

Other than the right to reproduce and distribute something as an
I-D (and for a limited period of time, a not-quite-separate
issue), we should not care about the restrictions that are
applied to an I-D until the moment it enters a process that might
lead to an RFC. For things that do, the only things that should
carry restrictions of the nature of "distribute and use, but
don't alter" should be the products of external bodies that 2026
calls out as examples. I think that entry point occurs when any
of the following conditions is met:

(i) the document is accepted as a WG document (for reasons
identified by Steve Coya and others, I think that has to be a
Chair or AD decision that results in moving the document into the
list of docs on the WG's charter page).

(ii) the document is passed to the IESG or RFC Editor with a
request to publish.

(iii) the document discusses protocols (not just context,
history, or non-normative models) and becomes a candidate for
discussion by a WG (or equivalent process, such as a formal
design team).  I.e., if a document contains material that might
be incorporated into, or that includes material that might
influence the particulars of, a standard, we need identification
of IPR, change control, derivative works rights, etc., before the
moment we start considering it.  Obviously, the reason for this
is that, depending on subsequent decisions, the material in the
document might be reasonably claimed to include IPR that
contaminates or encumbers a protocol proposed for standardization.

But I think it is neither required nor appropriate that we
require a type 1 release on, e.g., a "method 'foo' considered
harmful as an alternative for proposed protocol 'bar'" document.
It may  be _input_ to a WG, but it needs a release only if the WG
decides to adopt and publish it.   And the author should be
permitted to reserve the right to publish it unchanged, as a
reflection as her views, by negotiation with the RFC Editor
and/or IESG -- and that publication should require only yielding
permanent republication rights, not modification ones.

    john

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

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:25:41 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

FWIW, I agree - boilerplate analyses should not be done until the process
to publish is initiated. After all, we continually point out that I-Ds
have no status, and the IESG should not spend time I-Ds that randomly show
up.

In the WG Training sessions, Jeff and I both instruct folks NOT to accept
individual documents as WG items unless the proper boilerplate is used for
the same reason - why waste time.

Steve