Subject: RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:46:25 +0100

I noticed today that I gave an incorrect answer to one of
Kireeti's points. He asked and I answered:

> > I would like to know what the intent is in not granting
> > "the right to produce derivative works",
> Did Steve Trowbridge not answer the first question?
> 
This is in the Draft-aboulmagd-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt document.
It states:

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to
   produce derivative works is not granted.

But this is OK since this is documenting ITU material.

Bert and Scott

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:18:09 -0500

Bert,

    A common example of useful "derivative" work is to modify the
document
such that references include URLs and include it in web-sites. There are
any
number of private, or semi-private - and maybe one or two public - web
sites
that have provided hyper-linked versions of Internet Drafts in just this
way.

    Because this document explicitly excludes derivative works, this
precludes
doing this for this (eventual) RFC - or, more likely, sets someone up for
legal
trouble if they have already done so.

    I'm not sure why an RFC might be granted perpetual unrestricted
copyright
but not allowed in derivative works. Is the intent to include copies as
derivative
works?

    It seems a good idea to provide justification - or at least and
explanation -
if an intended RFC is no in complete compliance with RFC 2026.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:38:25 -0500

> but not allowed in derivative works. Is the intent to include copies as

I think the goal is to prevent the creation of non-canonical versions that
possibly have errata in them.  If I create a derivative work by adding hyperlinks
and the like, and accidentally change a 3 to a 4 or something like that, all
sorts of mischief will result....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:03:50 -0500

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:08:32 EST, Eric Gray said:
>     I believe this concern is dealt with by the fact that there is an IETF
> official site and various similarly official reflectors.  If an error exist a
t
> an official site, the IETF community has a responsibility to point it out.

You know that, I know that, most of the IETF knows that.  However, unless
I'm severely confused (which is always possible), the prohibition against
derivative works came from the ITU side of the fence, which has often been
accused of Just Not Getting It (see its long-standing policy of charging for
copies of standards, etc).  The ITU is driven a lot more by politics and
lawyers than the IETF is, so the IETF-style "if we find a broken copy we'll
fix it and smack the offender upside the head" doesn't go over very well...

Remember, we're talking about the same cultural difference that lead to
MIME and X.400.....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:15:03 -0500 (EST)

> However, unless
> derivative works came from the ITU side of the fence,

the prohibition is more not used all that often - two main cases where
is is
	1/ vendor work publish for the information of the community
	2/ republishing a standard from another SDO 

just like we would not want the ITU "fixing" an IETF standard w/o our
input it seems a reasonable desire to not have the IETF "fix" an ITU
(or ETSI etc) standard w/o their involvement

Scott

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:08:32 -0500

Valdis,

    This would be a fair concern, but is the business of the standard's
organization to whom a proposal is offered.  The IETF specifically
asks for the right to produce derivative works, in spite of the fact that
the concern you mention applies universally.

    I believe this concern is dealt with by the fact that there is an IETF
official site and various similarly official reflectors.  If an error exist at
an official site, the IETF community has a responsibility to point it out.

[email-masked] wrote:

>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:06:12 -0500

the reason for copyrighting the standards produced by IETF is precisely
to simultaneously allow IETF to derive new standards documents from the
older ones and to have the ability to prohibit others from doing so without
specific authorization.

Vint

>(or ETSI etc) standard w/o their involvement

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax