Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-author-contributors-00

From: "Valerie See \(LCA\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:23:30 -0700

So if I were to paraphrase the "IETF" part of the first problem, 
there is a desire to ensure that the IETF has sufficient rights
to do derivatives of its own work(s)?

(I realize that there are also other issues reflected there, 
such as the ASN.1 matter and referencing of portions of RFCs by
manuals, but I was looking at the point of a new author being
able to update an existing RFC, as that message discusses).

Is there a goal that the IETF _wants_ to allow derivative works
outside the process? (I'm asking this only to understand the asks
better - if there is not a goal to do this, then an ask for 
unlimited derivative rights is quite a large ask - not one I 
think I've seen previously in the standards context.) 

thanks, Val

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:58 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Valerie See
(LCA)
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-author-contributors-00

> I am a bit
> confused about what, exactly, is the problem that we are seeking to 
> solve.

the issue is that we (the IETF) 
	1/ may not get enough rights from an author to do our job see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg02917.html

	2/ can not authorize people outside of the IETF to make
	   derivative works

note that the ID does not grant any right to make derivative works
outside of the IETF process just makes it possible to do so in the
future on a case by case or wholesale basis

this idea was strongy supported at the last IPR WG session

Scott

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:29:59 -0400 (EDT)

> So if I were to paraphrase the "IETF" part of the first problem,=20

correct - and some fear that we do not currently have that

> outside the process? 

some people do

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:47:02 +0200

>>Is there a goal that the IETF _wants_ to allow derivative works

One example is if we decide, as part of a liaison arrangement with
another SDO, to hand over maintenance of a specification to them.

There's at least one current instance of this in discussion; and
it looks like we have to go and get specific permissions from the
original authors.

But it isn't a blanket permission - we aren't about to relinquish
control of RFC 2460 so that anybody can publish an IPv6 spec with
a few bytes reversed.

     Brian