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

From: "Valerie See \(LCA\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:19:34 -0700

Brian (and Scott) -

In reading Brian's post this morning, I find that I must confess that 
more generally, in reading the threads around Scott's I-D, , I am a bit 
confused about what, exactly, is the problem that we are seeking to 
solve. Is there a brief summary of it (or illustrative example) 
that you could point me to?

An immediate concern I have about the proposed solution (other than 
I'm not sure I understand the problem ;-)) is that it would seem to 
permit (or perhaps encourage) splintering of IETF specifications 
outside the IETF's own processes (including the possible unrestricted 
use of IETF text by other standards groups). I am not certain that 
this is an intended outcome, but again, I may be missing something 
given that I'm not understanding the problem.

Thanks, Val See

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:58:01 -0400 (EDT)

> I am a bit
> 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