Subject: NEW ITEM: Notices and Rights Required in RFC Editor Contributions

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:39:56 -0400

When I was revising 1id-guidelines, I engaged the RFC Editor in trying
to help me express the rules wrt RFC 3978 6.b.  The response was that:

6.b.A) didn't make sense since it was asking to agree to the rights
for IETF contributions;
6.b.B) was possibly dangerous to the IETF, since e.g., it doesn't
require the copyright notice from section 5.4 or the disclaimer from
section 5.5

and that the 6.b.C) seemed the closest to the truth except for the
additional copyright URL in an RFC Editor Contribution.

If RFC 3978 is going to be updated, I'd like to see section 6 revised
to actually address what the RFC Editor requires/desires.  Having
unused options just makes life confusing.

  Bill

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:48:45 -0700

Bill - this is exactly the problem with having a contract for services and
performance spread out across a bunch of different and somewhat unconnected
documents.

I would like to propose that there be one "Participation Contract" and that
its sections if necessary can be broken out into other documents but that
these documents should be exempted from the traditional IETF Formula and be
implemented in the more traditional document/contract forms.

Where the rubber meets the road should be a single document specifying which
other documents and how they leverage or mitigate each other and one where
there is a simple and unified reliance process.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:16:47 -0700

Catching up on the tracker - this is now item #1337.

(note that as John Klensin has noted, a tracker is good at tracking 
small, independent items. It's less good at tracking overarching, 
interrelated issues....)