Subject: RE: Status of IETF Plenary discussions ?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:59:14 -0000

Scott,

Thanks.  I'm not questioning the example you quote, just the general
process.  I presume that the current process would be something like:
Plenary discussion -> IESG ( or IAB ) discussion and decision -> IESG ( or
IAB ) announcement.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 03 March 2003 12:30
To: Travers,G,Graham,DKE TRAVERG R; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Status of IETF Plenary discussions ?

> This is a *genuine* question, as I don't understand the process here.
> 
> You wrote:
> 	"one thing that I do not recall seeing on this (sometimes too busy)
> 	list is
>	the fact that, for security-related technology, a discussion at an
>	IETF
>	plenary meeting endorced the idea that all mandarory-to-implement
>	security 
>	technologies (such as encryption technologies) should be RF or
>	IPR-free
>
>	this was a number of years ago and thus are, to me, part of the
>	existing
>	IPR practice that should be documented in teh new IDs"
>
>	What is the status of a Plenary discussion / endorsement ?  How does
> it fit with the rule that the list is the final arbiter of consensus ?
> 
> 	( I am under the impression that the normal route for publication is
> the I-D & RFC route, or statements that come from the IESG, IAB, Nomcom,
> etc.)

not an unreasonable question, but in this case one that referrs to
a decision taken quite a while ago at a time when the IESG was not
at all good at sending out statements of its decisions 

my take is that the plenary disccussion in this case provided 
background information for the IESG (and in particular the Security
ADs) and that the IESG made a decision based on that information 
and its own discussions.  

this push to IPR-free in the case of mandatory-to-implement
security technology has been "running code" for quite a while
(maybe as long as 8 years - I have not been able to dig up 
just when the discussion happened, Jeff Schiller thinks it was
at teh Danvers IETF meeting in 1995) so fits this WGs charter
to "Document existing IPR practice in the IETF"

Scott

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:57:33 -0500 (EST)

> Plenary discussion -> IESG ( or IAB ) discussion and decision -> IESG ( or

that is one way, myself I'd rather

	Internet-Draft -> WG discussion -> RFC

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:47:29 +0100

>         Internet-Draft -> WG discussion -> RFC

Specifically, after Danvers, there was if I recall

IAB/IESG email statement on crypto export & key escrow
 -> Internet-Draft -> IETF list discussion -> RFC 1984

(I can't be bothered to dig through ancient email to confirm this,
but I'm pretty sure that it happened that way.)

The point is that basically the same process was followed as
for any non-WG document. (Of course, one could insert a WG
if that seemed necessary, but for the crypto policy, there
was pretty immediate consensus.)

However, the issue of RF security technology that Scott referred to,
whether it was discussed at the Danvers meeting or not, did not
lead to such a process. I imagine people felt that it was simply
a matter of interpretation of the rules then in force (RFC 1602).

   Brian