Subject: Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:43:07 -0400 (EDT)

bil sez:
        ah... but said RFC did not exist at the time my IDs 
        went out. and my cursory perusal of said RFC seems
        to indicate that it is mute on materials submitted
        into the IETF process in times that pre-date said 
        RFC existance.

fully agree - that was not my purpose in providing teh pointer - I
just wanted you (and others) to know what today's rules are

        that said, it could be that the 40,000 or so legacy
        draft authors won't care, but it would be sound hygiene
        to ask them if they mind if RFC 3667 rules would apply
        to their contributions.  

you are kidding - right?

Scott

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

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:16:36 -0700 (PDT)

You could do an opt-out period, say 6 months, before publishing
the database.  With sufficient publicity, say periodic reposting
of the opt-out announcement on the ietf list, this seems to
strike a balance between the unspecified policy of the past
and a new policy for the future.  

This seems like a more-than-sufficient amount of care given
the fact that the data is already available in numerous
locations on the network.  

However, I don't think you even need to do an opt-out 
requirement.  Times change.  The data exists on the net.  
The IETF needs to keep a full archive for legal reasons
even if it doesn't allow FTP access by the public.  Why
should lawyers with subpoenas get access to the database
and members of the community can't?  We should simply
remove the access control.

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:22:45 -0700

> requirement.  Times change.  The data exists on the net.  

There are those of us who actively pursue this when it happens. It 
usually takes a few emails.

Just because someone usurps your copyright doesn't mean you've lost 
copyright per se, or should.

> and members of the community can't? 

Let's see all your legal and medical records, if you're in such a mood 
for sharing. ;-) There are plenty of things that can be accessed only 
with due process, and (IMO) should require such.

> We should simply

In case it isn't clear, I disagree ;-)

Joe

> This message was passed through [email-masked], which is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator ([email-masked]).

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:54:40 -0700 (PDT)

%         that said, it could be that the 40,000 or so legacy
%         draft authors won't care, but it would be sound hygiene
%         to ask them if they mind if RFC 3667 rules would apply
%         to their contributions.  
% 
% you are kidding - right?
% 
% Scott

	nope. not kidding any more than you are.

	In movie production, they have a team of folks ensure that
	all music used is properly credited and appropriate licenses
	aquired.  Disney did not perform due diligence and is facing 
	loss of all its trademark protection in South Africa for failing
	to properly clear some of the music it used in "Lion King".

	-IF- ISOC/IETF is going to attempt to retroactively assert
	a right to publish works under different rules than were originally
	granted -WITHOUT the Authors Permission-, then there will be a
	(perhaps) small number of legal challanges.  I think it would 
	be ethically more sound to ask permission first.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:22:16 -0400

Please refer to RFC2026, section 10.3.1, point 1:

   l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to
      copyright.  However, to the extent that the submission is or may
      be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he
      represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in
      the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive,
      royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the
      IETF under any copyrights in the contribution.  This license
      includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the
      contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are
      based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the
      license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the
      license of the original contribution.

For the purpose of the present discussion, the key word here is 
"perpetual".  For any I-D that is considered a contribution to the IETF 
process, the provisions above apply, and the IETF's license to publish does 
not expire.

The old 1id-guidelines.txt required that I-D's be submitted with one of 
three pieces of boilerplate text at the top.  Two of those texts indicate 
compliance with RFC2026 section 10, thereby explicitly acknowledging the 
terms above.  For I-D's submitted with one of these texts, I don't think 
there is an issue.  For I-D's submitted with the third text, it may be best 
to solicit continued permission to publish, or simply omit them from the 
repository -- after all, they are by definition not "contributions" to the 
IETF process, and so we presumably care less about them for archival 
purposes.

RFC2026 was published in 1996.  So, this leaves open the question of what 
to do with I-D's submitted before these rules went into effect.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Sr. Research Systems Programmer
   School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:19:01 +0300 (EEST)

> with due process, and (IMO) should require such.

This looks like a bad analogy.  Have your medical or legal records 
already been published elsewhere in the net in dozens of places?  Have 
you bothered to contact all of them to get the information you don't 
want to keep on record be removed?

Sounds like some might want to rather use web pages to convey some of 
the ideas than Internet-Drafts.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings