Subject: WG Last Call - summary of issues

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:26:22 +0100

The WG Last Call for the -incoming document, with included issues in the 
-outgoing document, is over.

The following tracked issues have been identified as "open":

1511    Incoming 5.10: Back-license to document authors in resulting RFCs
- WG meeting in Vancouver found current draft text acceptable
1514    Incoming 2: Section 1 should be normative
- WG meeting in Vancouver agreed that sections 1 and 2 should be normative
1515    Incoming 5.6: "Contributor" used with 2 meanings
- WG meeting in Vancouver agreed that there's an issue, and invited drafts
1516    Incoming 5.7: stale reference to section 5.4?
- WG meeting in Vancouver found it best to reference all of section 5 
here ("this section")
1517    Incoming 5.3: Right to sub-license
- WG meeting in Vancouver found it appropriate to include "sub-license" 
explicitly in granted rigts
1539    Incoming 5.1 and 5.3: Language referring to contributors' sponsors
- Mailing list consensus seems to be that we want to say that 
contributors, by making a contribution, state that they have the right 
to make the contribution; text should not make it seem as if the 
contributors' employer or sponsor has to make a statement.

No issues were raised against -outgoing.

A new version of -incoming, -04, was posted after the WG meeting. It 
includes the resolution of issue #1511, #1514, #1516 and #1517, plus a 
few other changes, including the "requested" -> "directed" change noted 
in the Last Call text, and the clarification that the IETF Trust 
maintains the "legend instructions".

If there is no great protest on the mailing list, I will close those 
issues as "resolved in -04".

That leaves us with #1515 and #1539 as the two unresolved issues. I 
think we know what we want to accomplish in both cases, it's a matter of 
getting the text to say what we want it to say.

Once we have suggested text, we should be able to issue -05, and have 
the documents reviewed by counsel to check that they will say what we 
think they say also when they're being read by a lawyer; thereafter, the 
documents will go to the IESG for emission of an IETF Last Call.

It's likely that the IETF Last Call will occur in 2008, not 2007.

                      Harald

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

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:15:24 +0100

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Mailing list consensus seems to be that we want to say that 
> contributors, by making a contribution, state that they have
> the right to make the contribution; text should not make it
> seem as if the contributors' employer or sponsor has to make
> a statement.

+1

> I think we know what we want to accomplish in both cases, it's
> a matter of getting the text to say what we want it to say.
 
> Once we have suggested text, we should be able to issue -05,
> and have the documents reviewed by counsel to check that they
> will say what we think they say also when they're being read
> by a lawyer; thereafter, the documents will go to the IESG for
> emission of an IETF Last Call.

Yes, let's check out the "outgoing rough consensus" prediction.

 Frank

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:18:48 -0500

+1 (ditto).

--David

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:47:17 +1300

+1 more

    Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:18:30 +0100

Given the lack of reaction on the list, I'm declaring #1511, #1514, 
#1516 and #1517 as "resolved in version -04".

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The WG Last Call for the -incoming document, with included issues in 
> the -outgoing document, is over.
>
> - WG meeting in Vancouver found it appropriate to include 
> "sub-license" explicitly in granted rigts
> few other changes, including the "requested" -> "directed" change 
> noted in the Last Call text, and the clarification that the IETF Trust 
> think we know what we want to accomplish in both cases, it's a matter 
> of getting the text to say what we want it to say.
>
> think they say also when they're being read by a lawyer; thereafter, 
> the documents will go to the IESG for emission of an IETF Last Call.
>