Subject: RE: Part 1 - comments/feedback on Bradner "technology-rights-01" draft

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:37:22 -0800

Thanks, Scott - this was very helpful.

A very tangential question - when you said:

> it has been my assumption that, when we are done, "my" two documents
> will replace RFC 2026 sec 10 and that the other Scott's document 
> is to be seen as guidelined to working groups in making sure they
> understand the two new RFCs

is the thinking that after your RFCs are finalized that RFC 2026 would 
be obsoleted by virtue of a newer version incorporating the material
(either directly or by reference) from your two docs?

Do you happen to recall what plenary had that security-related
discussion?

thx, Val See

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 5:22 AM
To: [email-masked]; Valerie See
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Part 1 - comments/feedback on Bradner
"technology-rights-01" draft

Re: Valerie See's worry about document overlap

fwiw - I think that my 2 new IDs are meant to update 2026 

note that the IETF has not been operating *strictly* under 2026 for 
quite a while - for example the IETF has had the "Note Well" messasge
for the last few years

note that the IDs say
   The rules and procedures set out in this document are not
   intended to substantially modify or alter IETF's or ISOC's current
   policy toward IPR in the context of the IETF standards process. 

and note that the WG charter says that we are to:
   "Document existing IPR practice in the IETF"

since the "existing IPR practice in the IETF" is not *just* 2026 the
new IDs do go beyond 2026 to include things like the Note Well note
and the currently practiced IPR policies

one thing that I do not recall seeing on this (sometimes too busy) list
is
the fact that, for security-related technology, a discussion at an IETF
plenary meeting endorced the idea that all mandarory-to-implement
security 
technologies (such as encryption technologies) should be RF or IPR-free

this was a number of years ago and thus are, to me, part of the existing
IPR practice that should be documented in teh new IDs

it has been my assumption that, when we are done, "my" two documents
will replace RFC 2026 sec 10 and that the other Scott's document 
is to be seen as guidelined to working groups in making sure they
understand the two new RFCs

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:18:51 -0500 (EST)

> (either directly or by reference) from your two docs?

no, just that rfc 2926 sec 10 would be obsoleted

> Do you happen to recall what plenary had that security-related

I asked Jeff Schiller (the security AD that ran the dicsussion)
he thinks it might have been Danvers but I'm not sure, I think it was later

Scott