Subject: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:18:15 -0400 (EDT)

tme said:
> 6. Provide the rationale for proposed changes in the future, rather than
> a summary listing of the changes 

this, to me, is exactly the wrong way for the IETF Trust to work.  I do
not want a "rationale for proposed changes"

it seems to me that the Trust should work in one of 3 ways depending on
the situation

1st way:
The IETF community provides the IETF Trust with a specific request and
the Trust provides possible changes or new text to meet the specific
request.  The IETF request can come form a WG, in which case it should
be in the form of a BCP (an IETF consensus document) or, with a public
justification, from the IETF Chair (or maybe the IAB Chair).  The Trust
publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and the changes
are adopted if the IETF Chair determines that there is IETF consensus
support for the specific changes.

2nd way:
The IETF Trust determines that there is a specific legal risk that must
be countered.  In this case the IETF Trust posts a description of the
specific risk and the proposed change to counter the risk.  In this case
the Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and
adopts the changes if the IETF Chair determines that there is not IETF
consensus against the specific changes.

3rd way:
The IETF Trust determines that there are changes it would like to make
that are not in response to a specific legal risk.  In this case the
Trust publishes a list of the reasons they feel that the changes are
needed and the proposed changes.  (Note: not a list of changes and the
rationale for the changes - I think the IETF needs to agree that the
problems are ones that need fixing first)  The Trust publishes the
proposed changes with a 4-week last call and the changes are adopted
if the IETF Chair determines that there is IETF consensus
support for each specific change.

In no case does the IETF Trust adopt any changes without a public
statement concerning IETF consensus by the IETF Chair.  i.e., there is
no default adoption of changes by the Trust.

Scott

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:31:53 +0200

> support for the specific changes.

Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case?  RFC 5377 and
5378 were published and other issues were raised later on.  The Trust
responded by reviewing the TLP and suggest modifications based on the
RFC and discussions afterwards.  The modifications are now out for a
30 day community review.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no
          hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:29:19 -0400 (EDT)

> Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? 

I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes
nor did I see a statement from the Trust saying that there
are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic
reasons

maybe there were such statements and I missed them

what I did see was a bunch of changes without anything
that said specifically what problem each change was
trying to solve (not a "justification" for the change but a reason
that any change is needed at all)

we have been changing the IETF's IPR rules far too often
(and I'm in no small way responsible for many of the changes)
we should get out of that mode and only be making changes
where there is a speific need to do so.

Scott

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:52:20 -0600

> RFC and discussions afterwards.  The modifications are now out for a 

The Trustees announced six changes on July 18, and set the end of the 
comment period at July 23.  That's not a 30-day community review of the 
six changes, that's a 5-day review.

--
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

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:18:37 -0400

On Jul 19, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:

>> Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case?  RFC 5377  
>> and 5378 were published and other issues were raised later on.  The  
>> Trust responded by reviewing the TLP and suggest modifications  
>> based on the RFC and discussions afterwards.  The modifications are  
>> now out for a 30 day community review.
>
> The Trustees announced six changes on July 18, and set the end of  
> the comment period at July 23.  That's not a 30-day community review  
> of the six changes, that's a 5-day review.

As Marshall's email of 18 July said:

Since the original call went out on the 23rd of June, the comment  
period is extended to the 23rd of July.

The 'six changes' reflected interim decisions made by the Trustees as  
a result of community input during this period.  A revised TLP will  
not be adopted until after the 30 day period, likely to be while in  
Stockholm.  Those 6 interim decisions and the remaining document are  
still before the community for feedback to the Trustees.

Ray
Trustee

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:55:30 -0400

--On Sunday, July 19, 2009 12:18 PM -0400 Ray Pelletier 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The Trustees announced six changes on July 18, and set the
>> end of   the comment period at July 23.  That's not a 30-day
>> community review   of the six changes, that's a 5-day review.
>
> Since the original call went out on the 23rd of June, the
> comment period is extended to the 23rd of July.
>
> The 'six changes' reflected interim decisions made by the
> Trustees as a result of community input during this period.  A
> revised TLP will not be adopted until after the 30 day period,
> likely to be while in Stockholm.  Those 6 interim decisions
> and the remaining document are still before the community for
> feedback to the Trustees.

Ray,

Noting that this issue is included in my request to the Trustees 
that they review these decisions and the ways of doing business 
that cause them...

    * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an
    IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a
    document, make a series of "interim decisions" and announce
    them five days before the end of that period, and then leave
    the comment period termination date in place rather than
    restarting the review on the revised document.

    * BCP 101 requires that the IAOC and, by extension, the
    Trustees, explain the reasoning for their decisions.  While
    Marshall's "interim" posting arguably does that for the
    changes that were made (the community's comments were
    accepted), it does not do so for any of the changes that
    were not made after other community comments.  Independent
    of when the comment period ends, that makes the interim
    announcement (and probably the original one) invalid.

--john

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:32:11 +0200

John,

>    restarting the review on the revised document.

For a purely practical point of view:  When I'm asked to review a document,
and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs to be modified, 
then this is something I'd like to know.  That saves me the time to review
something that is known to be changed anyway.

In WGLCs, this happens all the time.  Comments are made, authors acknowledge
them and promise a new version.

Henk

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:11:05 +0200

> I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes

Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement?
(At least, that is where people told me to start when I asked why
we are doing this).

Henk

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:28:30 -0400 (EDT)

> Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement?

sorry - I must have missed the announcement by the trust that 
they were responding to these RFCs 

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:21:22 -0400

--On Monday, July 20, 2009 10:32 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>    them five days before the end of that period, and then
>>    leave the comment period termination date in place rather
>>    than restarting the review on the revised document.
 
> and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs
> to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know.  That
> saves me the time to review

Sure.  And the period of time you get to make the review starts
when you get the changed version.   That is why I believe this
review period is, in practice, only five days long.

> In WGLCs, this happens all the time.  Comments are made,
> authors acknowledge them and promise a new version.

Sure.  But, in a WG situation, everyone is assumed to be
familiar with the documents and their development and the whole
process is one of ongoing development and discussion _by the WG_
until the document is ready to send to the IESG.  In that
regard, I don't believe that we have any specific, consensus,
rules about WG Last Calls -- they are simply an informal tool
available for use by the Chair.  When we had a document off for
review by the community --other than the developing body-- we
allow significant time, expect the document to be stable during
that review period, and, if it is necessary to change the
document after the review starts, we restart the review.

So I suggest that your analogy is reasonable and, for the TLP,
applies for reviews among the Trustees.  It does not shed any
useful light on Last Call-like reviews by the community.

regards,
   john

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:32:24 -0400 (EDT)

> Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement?

did I miss the posting that lists each of the proposed chages
with a pointer to the specific request for change (or specific
need for change) in these RFCs?

Scott

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:01:04 +0200

> are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic

This would have helped me as well.  Supposedly the changes would help 
one of my WG authors but I don't see how.  So I've had to refer the 
matter to my corporate legal people who have not gotten back to me, and 
so I have a draft stall.

Eliot

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:09:31 -0700

> consensus against the specific changes.

What do you think the Trust is doing in this case?

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:54:43 +0100

>On Jul 18, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:

[Numbering mine...]

>>The IETF Trust determines that there is a specific legal risk that 
>>must be countered.  In this case (***1***) the IETF Trust posts a 
>>description of the specific risk and the proposed change to counter 
>>the risk.  In this case (***2***) the Trust publishes the proposed 
>>changes with a 4-week last call and adopts the changes if (***3***) 
>>the IETF Chair determines that there is not IETF consensus against 
>>the specific changes.
>

They have failed (and continue to fail) to complete step 1.

They have made live changes during step 2 and have not reset the last 
call counter (which we do not do in IETF LC: If the changes are 
strictly editorial, the RFC Editor can be asked to make the changes, 
otherwise we reset the LC).

And there is nothing in the 6/23 announcement or the 7/18 followup to 
indicate that they intend to fulfill step 3. To the contrary, it says:

>Please accept this message as a formal request by the IETF Trustees 
>for your review and feedback on the proposed revision to the TLP 
>document. The comment period will end on July 20, 2009.
>
>I expect the Trustees will decide on whether to adopt this revision 
>shortly after July 20, 2009.

Not good.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:11:26 +0200

John,

> review period is, in practice, only five days long.

I'd think it is still 30 days.  N changes were proposed, on comments
made in the first days, it was clear that one of them wasn't a good
idea, so it was dropped.  No review is necessary for that, for the
other N-1 changes, there is still a 30 day period ongoing.

Henk