Subject: Protocol Action: 'IETF Rights in Contributions' to BCP

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:01:04 -0400

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'IETF Rights in Contributions '
   <draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix-00.txt> as a BCP

As part of issuing this RFC, RFC 3668 will also be reissued with a new
number.

This document is the product of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Harald Alvestrand.

Technical summary

 This document contains one very minor fix to RFC 3667, changing a few words
of one piece of boilerplate. Given the importance of these documents, the
IESG decided to issue a new RFC for this erratum.

 As part of issuing this RFC, RFC 3668 will also be reissued with a new
number.
Working Group summary

  The working group reached consensus on this change.
Protocol Quality

   The document was reviewed for the IESG by Harald Alvestrand.
RFC EDITOR NOTE:
Please change section 6 bullet b:
FROM:

   b. One of the following two copyright release statements:

      A. "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I accept the provisions of
         Section 3 of RFC XXXX."

      B. "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I accept the provisions of
         Section 4 of RFC XXXX."

   [note to RFC Editor - replace XXXX above with the number of this RFC]
TO:

   b. One of the following three copyright release statements:

      A. "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I accept the provisions of
         Section 3 of RFC XXXX."

      B. "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I accept the provisions of
         Section 4 of RFC XXXX."

      C. The Copyright Notice specified in Section 5.4 and the
         disclaimer specified in section 5.5

   [note to RFC Editor - replace XXXX above with the number of this RFC]

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

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:31:10 -0700 (PDT)

*> 
  *> Bob,
  *> 
  *> we discussed this - the other change (described in the RFC Editor note) 
  *> does affect the RFC Editor, but should permit you to set the policy the way 
  *> you want it to be. I did not change the writeup to reflect that, 
  *> unfortunately.
  *> 

Harald,

Yes.  I was just pointing out that there were other changes in the
document, one substantive.  Even if though the change is correct (from
your viewpoint), it is a change that was not noted in the document
description.

Bob

  *> For the issue with "rfc" versus "internet-draft" that you raised - the 
  *> conclusion that I arrived at, and the IPR list seemed to agree with, was 
  *> that it was inconsistent for the document to talk about RFCs in that 
  *> section, so it should remain the way the internet-draft says (and said).
  *> 
  *>                     Harald
  *> 
  *> 
  *>