Subject: FYI: 3979 update (was: I-D ACTION:draft-lynch-execd-tasks-00.txt)

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:40:13 +0100

[email-masked] wrote:

> Title           : Tasks previously assigned to the IETF Executive Director
[...]
> Filename        : draft-lynch-execd-tasks-00.txt

| 2.7.  RFC3979: Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
|
|   Original text:
|
|   (C) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
|       Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
|       Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR,
|       a written assurance... The working group proposing the use of the
|       technology with respect to which the Intellectual Property Rights
|       are disclosed may assist the IETF Executive Director in this effort.
|       ...  The results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive
|       Director,...
|   ...
| 6.4.2.  If a disclosure was made on the basis of a patent application
|   (either published or unpublished), then, if requested to do so by the
|   IESG or by a working group chair, the IETF Executive Director can
|   request a new disclosure
|
|
|   All four occurrences of "Executive Director" are replaced by "Head of
|   Secretariat."

Is a "head of secretary" in the position to "request" anything ?  Section
2.5 about RFC 3777 also mentions this undefined (?) "head of secretary".

The proposed update of RFC 2028 in 2.1 could be good enough for a 2028bis,
integrating the existing 2028 updates + errata.  Patchwork RFCs like 3978
plus 4748 are ugly - in that case justified because it was urgent, but no
ideal model for bulk updates.

Frank

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:04:50 +0100

> 2.5 about RFC 3777 also mentions this undefined (?) "head of secretary".
The update reflects the split of roles - in the Ancient Days, the IETF 
Executive Director and the head of the Secretariat were the same person, 
and had no formal responsibility towards the IETF.

In the post-IASA world order, Ray Pelletier is IETF Executive Director, 
and reports to IAOC; the secretariat is headed by an employee of Neustar 
Secretariat Services, and is under contract with ISOC.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:03:22 -0500

> and had no formal responsibility towards the IETF.

IMO, having to update our document to reflect these kinds of details
is unfortunate. It is clear that the intent should be that the
"secretariat function" (broadly defined) should make something happen
in this case.

> Secretariat Services, and is under contract with ISOC.

To some extent, it's Ray's job/role to see that the above gets done by
the "secretariat function", though I don't think the details need to
be specified in detail in a standards track document.

Can we come up with generic language that doesn't get to specific job
titles? And that doesn't need updating if the details of the
individual roles internal to NSS change?

Thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:44:52 +0100

> individual roles internal to NSS change?

At least as far as the BCP's in this WG's purview go, I believe
we have to make a for___________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:44:52 +0100

At least as far as the BCP's in this WG's purview go, I believe
we have to make a formal update, and I remind y'all that BCP 101
is fairly explicit that IASA/IAD are not involved in standards
process matters. If I can be persuaded that there's a better way
than a BCP patch, I'll be happy, but my logic leads that way.

And I have to contradict Harald: the IAD is not the ExecD.
BCP 101 doesn't say that. It says that the IAOC has a duty
    o  To designate, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, the
       person or people who carry out the tasks that other IETF process
       documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director.
But that is more of an [email-masked] issue.

    Brian

     Brian

mal update, and I remind y'all that BCP 101
is fairly explicit that IASA/IAD are not involved in standards
process matters. If I can be persuaded that there's a better way
than a BCP patch, I'll be happy, but my logic leads that way.

And I have to contradict Harald: the IAD is not the ExecD.
BCP 101 doesn't say that. It says that the IAOC has a duty
    o  To designate, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, the
       person or people who carry out the tasks that other IETF process
       documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director.
But that is more of an [email-masked] issue.

    Brian

     Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:32:57 +0100

> But that is more of an [email-masked] issue. 
I was through all the iterations on that - the conclusion was that it 
was an issue that couldn't be tackled in BCP 101 without delaying that 
process even more. So we left it open.

WRT "role in the standards process": The secretariat plays no role in 
the standards process either, except to facilitate it.
And that is something both the IAD and the secretariat does. So I don't 
buy that argument.
The reason the ExecDir was tasked with these tasks over the years was 
mostly (I think) that he was supposed to be someone with no personal 
stake in the outcome (as opposed to industry-employed people, who very 
well might have).

                   Harald