Subject: Re: [Ltru] IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:07:25 -0700

Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec dot com> responded to Simon Josefsson 
on the main IETF list:

>> As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some minor 
>> problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis.  Even though I was editor 
>> of RFC 4398.  The reason is that some material in that document was 
>> written by others.  At least, I cannot do this, without getting 
>> permission from the other people who wrote the initial document.  I 
>> wish this is mistaken and that someone can explain how to reconcile 
>> this example with what Russ wrote.
>
> Correct.  RFC 5378 imposes this burden on the contributor.  All of the 
> rights needed to make updates to the document within the IETF 
> Standards Process are clearly already available, but the contributor 
> is required to obtain the additional rights that are required by RFC 
> 5378.

Given that draft-4646bis contains significant text from RFC 4646, and 
even a bit of text from RFC 1766 and 3066 (written by a different 
author), I would like the co-chairs to evaluate the effect of the new 
IETF IPR policy on draft-4646bis, in coordination with the AD if 
necessary.  As a group, we should be prepared to answer any IPR 
questions about this draft that arise during IETF Last Call.

Because draft-4645bis contains all new text, none carried over from RFC 
4645 or any other RFC, I believe it has no issues of this sort.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:09:49 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair...

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73Plenary
...
> 4645 or any other RFC, I believe it has no issues of this sort.
...

The simplest course of (in)action would be to simply defer all further
work on these documents until the IETF sorts out the apparent (unintended)
consequences of RFC 5378.

However, I believe the contributions resulting in both works-in-progress
are adequately covered by section 5.1 of RFC 5378, and the effectively
equivalent language of the "NOTE WELL" statements in effect over the entire
lifetime of this working group.  I'm not aware of any language in the
current documents that might have come from 1766 or 3066 that was not also
present in RFC 4646, so for our purposes I think we only need consider
whether 4646 and 4647 permit derivative works.  Both of those works
*do* contain appropriate notices, and were developed by this WG in
good faith.

I'm not a lawyer, but, based on my reading of RFC 5378 as a co-chair
I'm reasonably sure that we do not need to take any special action.
If there *is* a problem that I've missed, I think the IESG can deal
with it (or toss it back to the WG) when we hand them the drafts.

So, unless someone has identified a specific problem with a specific
bit of text in either of the drafts, I suggest we procede without
introducing further delay.

Randy

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:21:38 -0800

I agree.

Mark

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:01:46 +0900

In addition to this, RFC 1766 and 3066, authored by Harald,
are covered by his signing a general licence with the IETF
Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/authorlic.html).

Regards,    Martin.

>introducing further delay.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]