From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 02 11:06:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FawSi-0007nS-JD; Tue, 02 May 2006 11:06:52 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FawSh-0007j9-LY for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 11:06:51 -0400 Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FawSh-0007Yu-9r for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 11:06:51 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k42F6o9E027479 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 10:06:50 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 2 May 2006 10:06:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802A95C13@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 10:06:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2086112c730e13d5955355df27e3074b Subject: [Techspec] Coming soon ... the next version of pub-req X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I'm back in the US and planning on generating a new version of pub-req soon. Here is my take on the consensus for changes for the 07->08 version. Comments back by end of the week. Thanks to Sandy and others for the detailed review. Stephen Hayes 1. Assignment of parameter values (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: the draft seems to indicate that the technical publisher will be assigning parameters instead of just inserting assigned parameters. Proposed change: modify text to indicate the publisher will insert the IANA assigned values. 2. Different boilerplates for pre-approval and post-approval documents (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: the boilerplates differ, which ones should be checked against? Proposed change: modify the text to indicate that the checks should be against boilerplate that is appropriate for the document at the current stage of its lifecycle. 3. How to describe the results from the early copy-edit experiment (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: It is too early to say "concept has been explored with promising results" Proposed Change: early feedback has been positive, however, the effectiveness of early copy-editing is still being evaluated. 4. Description of ambition levels for post-approval editing (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: The RFC editor ambition level is mainly correction of errors and alignment of style. Proposed Change: None - this describes possible ambition levels that could be mandated, not what the RFC editor currently does. 5. Comments on 40-100 substantive changes statistic in section 3.3 (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: 40-100 may be reasonable. Proposed Change: Change to "a substantial number of". 6. Comment on requirement to "refrain from making changes to improve readability" (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: RFC editor currently finds many errors in documents that require changes. Proposed Change: None - this is a subjective area and it is asking for restraint from the technical publisher. 7. Allowing technical publisher to reject late changes (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: Pushing changes to errata probably a bigger headache than just doing the late change Proposed Change: None - Already fixed in version-06. 8. How is maintenance of errata done (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: Who verifies the errata? Proposed Change: None - There is already a bullet (6th bullet) in section 5 saying the IETF needs to develop processes for vetting errata 9. How does early allocation of permanent ID's work? (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: Do documents not expire, etc. Proposed Change: None - early perm-id allocation removed in version 07. 10. Maintenance of a document or database of terms and acronyms (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: The RFC editor does this Proposed Change: Add "publicly available" to the sentence. This wasn't intended to refer to internal documentation. 11. Stats for non-technical publisher generated changes (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: Stats requested for author generated changes only, what about changes by ADs or WG chairs? Proposed Change: Change author generated changes to include changes made by ADs or other persons outside of the technical publisher empowered to make changes. 12. Concerns about the timeframes in section 4.1 (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: What do these stats apply to? What about changes to workload? Proposed Change: None - In version 07, the timeframes were fuzzed up. The actual performance goals are to be defined by contract. 13. Monthly editing stats (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: It may be onerous on the technical publisher to count/categorize all the corrections. Proposed Change: None - this does not require counting each change. Sampled statistics are acceptable. 14. Usage of exception handling (Sandy Ginoza) Comment: Why is exception handling an alternative to fast publication or early perm id allocation Proposed Change: Change "exception handling" to "expedited handling". Also early perm id no longer an alternative. 15. How do the results of experiments in technical publication get incorporated into the requirements (Jari Arkko) Comment: Is the requirement that the technical publisher participate in the change process sufficient to ensure they will address future requirements? Proposed Change: None - It seems a bit unfair to put in a requirement that the technical publisher will meet any (as of yet unknown) future requirements. Negotiation will be needed as requirements change. 16. IESG authority to require some or all of a document be publisher verbatim (John Klensin) Comment: Doesn't this open the door to the IESG bypassing the technical publisher? Couldn't this turn the IESG into copy-editors? Proposed Change: Two use cases will be added to the discussion section to illustrate the need of this function: > . "boilerplate" that's agreed on in an IETF working > group to apply to all instances of derivative > works (e.g., IANA registration documents, MIBs > etc) > > . text referring to other organizations' work -- which > has been carefully phrased and arranged with reps > of that other organization to deal with some > politically sensitive issue. It is not intended to turn into an alternate publication path. Process safeguards to prevent this are however outside the scope of this document (see item below). 17. Should the documents with text published verbatim have special IETF handling (John Klensin) Comment: If a document is published with "protected" text should it be flagged for special handling (special notification, appeals process) in the IESG. Proposed Change: None - Process issues are outside the scope of this document. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 09 12:10:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdUmx-00068P-Hc; Tue, 09 May 2006 12:10:19 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdUmw-00067W-Nt for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 12:10:18 -0400 Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net ([69.31.8.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdUmv-0000DT-EE for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 12:10:18 -0400 Received: from [64.100.227.85] ([::ffff:64.100.227.85]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 09 May 2006 12:10:52 -0400 id 0158810B.4460BF0C.00001FB1 Message-ID: <4460BEE3.1070107@thinkingcat.com> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 12:10:11 -0400 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: techspec@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Subject: [Techspec] [Fwd: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service' to Informational RFC (draft-mankin-pub-req)] X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org FYI -- the -08 version is now out, and Brian has put the document into IETF-wide, 4 week, last-call. Leslie. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service' to Informational RFC (draft-mankin-pub-req) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:44:21 -0400 From: The IESG Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Requirements for IETF Technical Publication Service ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-06-06. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 13:37:08 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixI9-0007ho-W0; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fix02-0008Mj-I2; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:18:22 -0400 Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fix01-0002Ah-7T; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:18:22 -0400 Received: from asus.online.fr (ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net [82.241.91.24]) by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9C573324; Wed, 24 May 2006 19:18:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060524190554.01e23b80@jefsey.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:13:45 +0200 To: Russ Housley ,ietf@ietf.org From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-78EB138F X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:04 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Dear Russ, the authors can either be individuals or WGs. The practice to quote authors for WG documents while they are a cooperative work seems a wrong practice to me. Copyrights' period take into consideration the date of the death of the last contributor. The name of all the members of a WG should be noted if the rights are not exclusively with the IETF. When a group of individuals wants to propose a document its members known the numerus clausus before (whatever the number). The missing possibility is for an entity to introduce a collective Draft. Only IAN, IESG, etc.can introduce a Draft under their name. IMHO WG2 and R&D organisations should too. jfc At 18:37 24/05/2006, Russ Housley wrote: >I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the >number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The >RFC Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent >IPR WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain >significant copyright. > >In one of the working groups in the Security Area, there is a >document with six authors on it. I asked the WG chairs to reduce >the author count in the hope of avoiding a problem down the >road. At that time, I was not aware of the copyright. Now, I think >I gave the WG Chairs inappropriate directions. > >The IESG and the whole Internet Community needs clear direction on >this issue. I suspect that the IPR WG will be a part of the process >to resolve it. Also, the Tech Spec document, which is currently in >Last Call, many need to include a requirement that the RFC Editor >explicitly acknowledge copyright holders in some fashion. > >Russ > > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 13:37:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixIA-0007i4-38; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fix3E-0001If-0w for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:21:40 -0400 Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp ([131.112.32.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fix3C-0002JN-E5 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:21:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 67045 invoked from network); 24 May 2006 17:39:32 -0000 Received: from softbank219001188003.bbtec.net (HELO necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp) (219.1.188.3) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 24 May 2006 17:39:32 -0000 Message-ID: <4474961D.2000604@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 02:21:33 +0900 From: Masataka Ohta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja-JP; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: ja, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:04 -0400 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Russ Housley wrote: > I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the > number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC > Editor currently limits the author count to five people. FYI, that is a violation of Article 6bis of Berne convention: (1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. That is, in most countries including US, no one can distort the real authorship (perhaps without spontaneous consent from the authors). Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 13:37:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixI9-0007hb-Sg; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiwMX-0000Ek-CO for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:33 -0400 Received: from woodstock.binhost.com ([144.202.243.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiwMW-0000Aq-35 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 8998 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2006 16:37:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (71.126.181.72) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 24 May 2006 16:37:23 -0000 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:25 -0400 To: ietf@ietf.org From: Russ Housley Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:04 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. In one of the working groups in the Security Area, there is a document with six authors on it. I asked the WG chairs to reduce the author count in the hope of avoiding a problem down the road. At that time, I was not aware of the copyright. Now, I think I gave the WG Chairs inappropriate directions. The IESG and the whole Internet Community needs clear direction on this issue. I suspect that the IPR WG will be a part of the process to resolve it. Also, the Tech Spec document, which is currently in Last Call, many need to include a requirement that the RFC Editor explicitly acknowledge copyright holders in some fashion. Russ _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 13:37:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixIA-0007i4-38; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fix3E-0001If-0w for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:21:40 -0400 Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp ([131.112.32.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fix3C-0002JN-E5 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:21:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 67045 invoked from network); 24 May 2006 17:39:32 -0000 Received: from softbank219001188003.bbtec.net (HELO necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp) (219.1.188.3) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 24 May 2006 17:39:32 -0000 Message-ID: <4474961D.2000604@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 02:21:33 +0900 From: Masataka Ohta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja-JP; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: ja, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:04 -0400 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Russ Housley wrote: > I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the > number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC > Editor currently limits the author count to five people. FYI, that is a violation of Article 6bis of Berne convention: (1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. That is, in most countries including US, no one can distort the real authorship (perhaps without spontaneous consent from the authors). Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 13:37:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixI9-0007hb-Sg; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiwMX-0000Ek-CO for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:33 -0400 Received: from woodstock.binhost.com ([144.202.243.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiwMW-0000Aq-35 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:33 -0400 Received: (qmail 8998 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2006 16:37:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (71.126.181.72) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 24 May 2006 16:37:23 -0000 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:25 -0400 To: ietf@ietf.org From: Russ Housley Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:37:04 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. In one of the working groups in the Security Area, there is a document with six authors on it. I asked the WG chairs to reduce the author count in the hope of avoiding a problem down the road. At that time, I was not aware of the copyright. Now, I think I gave the WG Chairs inappropriate directions. The IESG and the whole Internet Community needs clear direction on this issue. I suspect that the IPR WG will be a part of the process to resolve it. Also, the Tech Spec document, which is currently in Last Call, many need to include a requirement that the RFC Editor explicitly acknowledge copyright holders in some fashion. Russ _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:20:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixyS-0001Tq-GX; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:20:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixkY-00049F-DO; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:06:26 -0400 Received: from carter-zimmerman.dyn.mit.edu ([18.188.3.148] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FixkX-00058g-72; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:06:26 -0400 Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 1B5A1E000E; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:06:18 -0400 (EDT) To: Russ Housley References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> From: Sam Hartman Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:06:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> (Russ Housley's message of "Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:25 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:20:47 -0400 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: Russ> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that Russ> limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF Russ> IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author Russ> count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it Russ> clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. [There is this concept in US copyright law called a joint work. I'm ignoring that concept for the moment basically because I don't understand how it applies to either software or text developed using an open process. As far as I can tell, no one else understands it either. Please be aware that this may be a huge gap in my advice.] So, here we have a conflicting definitions problem. The author of a work retains the copyright interest. That's true if if I'm listed as an author or not. If I write text and do not assign the copyright to someone, I retain copyright interest in that text. So the sixth person still owns the copyright interest in the text they write even if they are not listed. That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to do anything interesting with that text. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:29:20 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy6i-0005Lp-Rg; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:29:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy6g-0005Ky-Vj for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:29:18 -0400 Received: from woodstock.binhost.com ([144.202.243.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy6f-0006Gf-L6 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:29:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 20327 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2006 18:22:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (71.126.181.72) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 24 May 2006 18:22:28 -0000 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:22:31 -0400 To: Sam Hartman From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Sam: We need a way to track the people that have copyright interest. I had always assumed this was the author list. If we are going to continue to limit the author count to five people, then there needs to be a place where the people with copyright interest are listed in the document. This is the reason that I included the techspec mail list on my posting. Russ At 02:06 PM 5/24/2006, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: > > Russ> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that > Russ> limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF > Russ> IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author > Russ> count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it > Russ> clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. > >[There is this concept in US copyright law called a joint work. I'm >ignoring that concept for the moment basically because I don't >understand how it applies to either software or text developed using >an open process. As far as I can tell, no one else understands it >either. Please be aware that this may be a huge gap in my advice.] > >So, here we have a conflicting definitions problem. > >The author of a work retains the copyright interest. That's true if >if I'm listed as an author or not. > >If I write text and do not assign the copyright to someone, I retain >copyright interest in that text. > >So the sixth person still owns the copyright interest in the text they >write even if they are not listed. > >That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed >significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to >do anything interesting with that text. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:35:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyD6-0007Tk-Kf; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:35:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyD4-0007T9-5h; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:35:54 -0400 Received: from carter-zimmerman.dyn.mit.edu ([18.188.3.148] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyD3-00071N-03; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:35:54 -0400 Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id B176EE000E; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:35:45 -0400 (EDT) To: Russ Housley References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> From: Sam Hartman Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:35:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> (Russ Housley's message of "Wed, 24 May 2006 14:22:31 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: Russ> Sam: We need a way to track the people that have copyright Russ> interest. I had always assumed this was the author list. Russ> If we are going to continue to limit the author count to Russ> five people, then there needs to be a place where the people Russ> with copyright interest are listed in the document. This is Russ> the reason that I included the techspec mail list on my Russ> posting. I think that's probably authors?+contributors. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:40:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHp-0002gP-DB; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHo-0002g0-HK for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHn-0007K8-5Q for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4OIeg7G040366 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:40:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:15:44 -0700 To: techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Subject: [Techspec] When to do pre-edit X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org In section 3.1: o Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide feedback to the authors to improve quality of the documents. This review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with previously published documents. This requirement might be modified to read "...documents before or during WG last call...", because some WG chairs may not know when a document is ready for WG last call until the last minute, and making them wait for the WG last call could be inappropriate. The technical publisher should help WG chairs understand that doing this review during WG last call could result in many more changes than they expected, but still let the WG chairs make the decision when to have the review done. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:40:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHp-0002gU-Fl; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHo-0002g4-JR for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHn-0007K6-5P for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4OIeg7E040366 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:40:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:38:46 -0700 To: techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Subject: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 PrecFrom techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:40:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHp-0002gP-DB; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHo-0002g0-HK for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHn-0007K8-5Q for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4OIeg7G040366 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:40:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:15:44 -0700 To: techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Subject: [Techspec] When to do pre-edit X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org In section 3.1: o Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide feedback to the authors to improve quality of the documents. This review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with previously published documents. This requirement might be modified to read "...documents before or during WG last call...", because some WG chairs may not know when a document is ready for WG last call until the last minute, and making them wait for the WG last call could be inappropriate. The technical publisher should help WG chairs understand that doing this review during WG last call could result in many more changes than they expected, but still let the WG chairs make the decision when to have the review done. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:40:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHp-0002gU-Fl; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHo-0002g4-JR for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHn-0007K6-5P for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4OIeg7E040366 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:40:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:38:46 -0700 To: techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Subject: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org The terminology used for who signs off on post-IESG changes is inconsistent in the document. It is fine that this document doesn't specify who does the sign-off (that's an IETF decision), but the document should be consistent in who it says is doing it. The wording is "appropriate technical representatives" in 3.3, but "appropriate IETF party (often the document shepherd, but sometimes, by referral, the IESG)" in 3.7. ----- In section 3.4: o Req-REFVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that references within specifications are available. That should probably be "...that all references..."; some of them are sure to be available. :-) ----- In section 4.1: o Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that the time required for a pre-publication review should be under 10 days. The actual performance targets and metrics are expected to be determined as part of the contract negotiation process. The term "pre-publication review" is not defined anywhere in the document, and it probably should, given this consensus statement. ----- Section 5 talks about "potential issues" for the IETF. Two bullet items do not match the earlier part of the document. o Pre- vs Post-Approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post- approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF processes must be adapted to make use of this service. The processes for post- approval editing can also be streamlined. Section 3.1 makes a requirement that the emphasis must switch. So, "If" should probably be "When". o Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers: IETF needs to clearly identify the naming/numbering schemes and classes of documents to which those names and numbers apply. Furthermore, the responsibility for allocation of those names/numbers needs to be identified. Section 3.8 says that it is the IETF publisher's responsibility, so the second sentence should probably be removed. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec edence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org The terminology used for who signs off on post-IESG changes is inconsistent in the document. It is fine that this document doesn't specify who does the sign-off (that's an IETF decision), but the document should be consistent in who it says is doing it. The wording is "appropriate technical representatives" in 3.3, but "appropriate IETF party (often the document shepherd, but sometimes, by referral, the IESG)" in 3.7. ----- In section 3.4: o Req-REFVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that references within specifications are available. That should probably be "...that all references..."; some of them are sure to be available. :-) ----- In section 4.1: o Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that the time required for a pre-publication review should be under 10 days. The actual performance targets and metrics are expected to be determined as part of the contract negotiation process. The term "pre-publication review" is not defined anywhere in the document, and it probably should, given this consensus statement. ----- Section 5 talks about "potential issues" for the IETF. Two bullet items do not match the earlier part of the document. o Pre- vs Post-Approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post- approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF processes must be adapted to make use of this service. The processes for post- approval editing can also be streamlined. Section 3.1 makes a requirement that the emphasis must switch. So, "If" should probably be "When". o Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers: IETF needs to clearly identify the naming/numbering schemes and classes of documents to which those names and numbers apply. Furthermore, the responsibility for allocation of those names/numbers needs to be identified. Section 3.8 says that it is the IETF publisher's responsibility, so the second sentence should probably be removed. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:40:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHp-0002gx-Ls; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHo-0002g3-JD for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHn-0007KB-5I for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4OIeg7K040366 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:40:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:36:50 -0700 To: techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Subject: [Techspec] Validation of formal languages X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Section 3.5 that seems out of place in that it is the only part of this document that says "the IETF technical publisher will review this part of documents for technical correctness". It makes sense to say "if automated tools are available to check formal languages, the IETF technical publisher should run the tools late in the editing process", but not to make it seem like that validation is the job of the technical publisher. This section might also add a requirement that the IETF technical publisher should not change any examples (changing words, reformatting with line breaks, and so on) without explicitly alerting the document authors. Some formal languages are quite sensitive to byte counts and line breaks. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:40:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHp-0002gg-IR; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHo-0002g2-IT for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyHn-0007KA-5J for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4OIeg7I040366 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:40:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:16:30 -0700 To: techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Subject: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org In section 3.3: o Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the appropriate technical representatives as defined in the IETF processes. Why is this a "should" instead of a "must"? For something as important as changes made after the WG and IESG reviews, it would seem that tracking and sign-off would be mandatory. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:44:21 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyLF-0004Fv-75; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:44:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyLC-0004B4-86; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:44:18 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyLA-0007XO-SI; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:44:18 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4OIghR04473; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:42:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id LAA14710; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605241842.LAA14710@gra.isi.edu> To: housley@vigilsec.com, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org *> That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed *> significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to *> do anything interesting with that text. *> Who decides what constitutes a "significant chunk"? Bob Braden _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:51:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyRk-00086o-Tu; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:51:04 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyRj-00086j-LN for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:51:03 -0400 Received: from woodstock.binhost.com ([144.202.243.4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyRi-0007ww-Dy for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:51:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 3538 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2006 18:44:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (71.126.181.72) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 24 May 2006 18:44:14 -0000 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:42:00 -0400 To: Sam Hartman From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Sam: If the people with copyright interest are the combination of the authors plus the contributors, then we need to specify this in a BCP. Does the RFC Editor have to contact the members of both lists during Auth48? If so, I would suggest that the RFf Editor only needs a positive reply from the authors, but that the contributors only need to respond if they discover a change that is needed. Russ At 02:35 PM 5/24/2006, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: > > Russ> Sam: We need a way to track the people that have copyright > Russ> interest. I had always assumed this was the author list. > Russ> If we are going to continue to limit the author count to > Russ> five people, then there needs to be a place where the people > Russ> with copyright interest are listed in the document. This is > Russ> the reason that I included the techspec mail list on my > Russ> posting. > >I think that's probably authors?+contributors. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 14:57:47 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyYF-0001Qo-11; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:57:47 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyYC-0001Le-F8; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:57:44 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyYB-0008Ds-3a; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:57:44 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4OIuGR09645; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:56:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id LAA14721; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605241856.LAA14721@gra.isi.edu> To: ietf@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org *> *> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the *> number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC *> Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR *> WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. Note that the number 5 is not magic here. When the phenomenon of balooning lists of authors (say, one or more from every telecom vendor you ever heard of) was first noticed, there was a discussion on the IETF list. The community consensus was that author list inflation was "un-IETF". I don't recall the details (there may have been a last call from the IESG, but I am not sure), but it was left to the RFC Editor to formulate the precise guideline. Five seemed like a reasonable limit. Do you like 6 better? We do tend to push back (via the WG chairs) a bit on more than 5 authors, since we knew that if there were many exceptions granted, everyone would discover they needed an exception, defeating the purpose of the limitation. We have found that almost everyone affected by the limit has understood the problem and been very cooperative in keeping to it. I do not recall the IPR issue raised before. Bob Braden for the RFC Editor _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:15:00 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiyol-0005KK-Ki; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:14:51 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiyoi-0005Jy-O5; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:14:48 -0400 Received: from carter-zimmerman.dyn.mit.edu ([18.188.3.148] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiyoh-0000cE-IK; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:14:48 -0400 Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 0D1D6E000E; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:14:40 -0400 (EDT) To: "Vijay Devarapallli" References: <200605241842.LAA14710@gra.isi.edu> From: Sam Hartman Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:14:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Vijay Devarapallli's message of "Wed, 24 May 2006 11:50:43 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>> "Vijay" == Vijay Devarapallli writes: Vijay> On 5/24/06, Bob Braden wrote: >> >> >> *> That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed >> *> significant chunks of text, you still need to get their >> clearance to *> do anything interesting with that text. *> >> >> Who decides what constitutes a "significant chunk"? Vijay> the primary author (there is always one person who No, a court in case of copyright suit. Lazy evaluation is not lways your friend. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:16:30 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyqM-0006CT-Sc; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:16:30 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyqK-00069h-Uy; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:16:28 -0400 Received: from carter-zimmerman.dyn.mit.edu ([18.188.3.148] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyqJ-0000j7-PG; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:16:28 -0400 Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 85743E000E; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:16:20 -0400 (EDT) To: Russ Housley References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> From: Sam Hartman Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:16:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> (Russ Housley's message of "Wed, 24 May 2006 14:42:00 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: Russ> Sam: If the people with copyright interest are the Russ> combination of the authors plus the contributors, then we Russ> need to specify this in a BCP. The people with copyright interest are whoever the court decides have copyright interest. I.E. only available on lazy evaluation. I agree we may want to specify in our publishing practices that we keep track of who we think has copyright interest. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:17:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyrS-0006Wq-1s; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:17:38 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyrQ-0006So-7t; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:17:36 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyrN-0000lb-Rw; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:17:36 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4OJGoR16840; Wed, 24 May 2006 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id MAA14726; Wed, 24 May 2006 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605241916.MAA14726@gra.isi.edu> To: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu, housley@vigilsec.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org In case anyone is unsure, the actual policy being followed by the RFC Editor will be found at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist Bob Braden for the RFC Editor _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mL-AX; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy8D-00064t-2m for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:30:53 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy8B-0006Mm-Sn for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:30:53 -0400 Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id s12so1450648wxc for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FN3Kx178y8h0xdD0Xo2l+/vUEgbTQWSIAOvm6hYLpuxN0EuMfAtzMwHB2XCRyFqvomOW4999koXA7F3R53J0db64EvLnJKTiUcTuBANUsNKepFqIYoJ9RQ3vlWoFgW9zWpOa8erH/+oBFsl9DDasCH5bPawztQ7Om056tLpfhcI= Received: by 10.70.75.12 with SMTP id x12mr8073340wxa; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.84.19 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:50 -0700 From: "Vijay Devarapallli" To: "Sam Hartman" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, Russ Housley , ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1990864990==" Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org --===============1990864990== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline T24gNS8yNC8wNiwgU2FtIEhhcnRtYW4gPGhhcnRtYW5zLWlldGZAbWl0LmVkdT4gd3JvdGU6Cgo+ IFRoYXQgbWVhbnMgaWYgeW91IGhhdmUgdW5saXN0ZWQgYXV0aG9ycyB3aG8gaGF2ZSBjb250cmli dXRlZAo+IHNpZ25pZmljYW50IGNodW5rcyBvZiB0ZXh0LCB5b3Ugc3RpbGwgbmVlZCB0byBnZXQg dGhlaXIgY2xlYXJhbmNlIHRvCj4gZG8gYW55dGhpbmcgaW50ZXJlc3Rpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGF0IHRl eHQuCgp0eXBpY2FsbHkgdGhlIHVubGlzdGVkIGF1dGhvcnMgYXJlIGlnbm9yZWQuCgphbHNvIGR1 cmluZyB0aGUgQVVUSDQ4IHBlcmlvZCwgdGhlIFJGQyBFZGl0b3IgY29udGFjdHMgb25seSB0aGUg bGlzdGVkIGF1dGhvcnMuCgpWaWpheQo= --===============1990864990== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec --===============1990864990==-- From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mA-7C; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy3r-0003ic-4G; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:26:23 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.192.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy3p-000632-QL; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:26:23 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-66-70.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.66.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20060524182619m1300gn7gie>; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:26:20 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Sam Hartman'" , "'Russ Housley'" Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:25:27 -0400 Message-ID: <0ac301c67f5f$6f129fb0$0400a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] RE: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the first page of the document.=20 It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the document in an contributors section. I also have concerns about who should be listed as an "author" and have copyrights when a work is developed by a WG. The demand to do things with IETF documents beyond IETF standards work seems to be growing, so it will be an increasingly difficult problem if we do not identify all the people who contributed significant portions of a document (where significant is of course open to debate). dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:06 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; ietf@ietf.org;=20 > techspec@ietf.org; ipr-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: RFC Author Count and IPR >=20 >=20 > >>>>> "Russ" =3D=3D Russ Housley writes: >=20 > Russ> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that > Russ> limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF > Russ> IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author > Russ> count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it > Russ> clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. >=20 > [There is this concept in US copyright law called a joint work. I'm > ignoring that concept for the moment basically because I don't > understand how it applies to either software or text developed using > an open process. As far as I can tell, no one else understands it > either. Please be aware that this may be a huge gap in my advice.] >=20 > So, here we have a conflicting definitions problem. >=20 > The author of a work retains the copyright interest. That's true if > if I'm listed as an author or not. >=20 > If I write text and do not assign the copyright to someone, I retain > copyright interest in that text. >=20 > So the sixth person still owns the copyright interest in the text they > write even if they are not listed. >=20 > That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed > significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to > do anything interesting with that text. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >=20 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mL-AX; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy8D-00064t-2m for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:30:53 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy8B-0006Mm-Sn for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:30:53 -0400 Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id s12so1450648wxc for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FN3Kx178y8h0xdD0Xo2l+/vUEgbTQWSIAOvm6hYLpuxN0EuMfAtzMwHB2XCRyFqvomOW4999koXA7F3R53J0db64EvLnJKTiUcTuBANUsNKepFqIYoJ9RQ3vlWoFgW9zWpOa8erH/+oBFsl9DDasCH5bPawztQ7Om056tLpfhcI= Received: by 10.70.75.12 with SMTP id x12mr8073340wxa; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.84.19 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:30:50 -0700 From: "Vijay Devarapallli" To: "Sam Hartman" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, Russ Housley , ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1990864990==" Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org --===============1990864990== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline T24gNS8yNC8wNiwgU2FtIEhhcnRtYW4gPGhhcnRtYW5zLWlldGZAbWl0LmVkdT4gd3JvdGU6Cgo+ IFRoYXQgbWVhbnMgaWYgeW91IGhhdmUgdW5saXN0ZWQgYXV0aG9ycyB3aG8gaGF2ZSBjb250cmli dXRlZAo+IHNpZ25pZmljYW50IGNodW5rcyBvZiB0ZXh0LCB5b3Ugc3RpbGwgbmVlZCB0byBnZXQg dGhlaXIgY2xlYXJhbmNlIHRvCj4gZG8gYW55dGhpbmcgaW50ZXJlc3Rpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGF0IHRl eHQuCgp0eXBpY2FsbHkgdGhlIHVubGlzdGVkIGF1dGhvcnMgYXJlIGlnbm9yZWQuCgphbHNvIGR1 cmluZyB0aGUgQVVUSDQ4IHBlcmlvZCwgdGhlIFJGQyBFZGl0b3IgY29udGFjdHMgb25seSB0aGUg bGlzdGVkIGF1dGhvcnMuCgpWaWpheQo= --===============1990864990== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec --===============1990864990==-- From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mA-7C; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy3r-0003ic-4G; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:26:23 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.192.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fiy3p-000632-QL; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:26:23 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-66-70.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.66.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20060524182619m1300gn7gie>; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:26:20 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Sam Hartman'" , "'Russ Housley'" Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:25:27 -0400 Message-ID: <0ac301c67f5f$6f129fb0$0400a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] RE: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the first page of the document.=20 It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the document in an contributors section. I also have concerns about who should be listed as an "author" and have copyrights when a work is developed by a WG. The demand to do things with IETF documents beyond IETF standards work seems to be growing, so it will be an increasingly difficult problem if we do not identify all the people who contributed significant portions of a document (where significant is of course open to debate). dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:06 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; ietf@ietf.org;=20 > techspec@ietf.org; ipr-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: RFC Author Count and IPR >=20 >=20 > >>>>> "Russ" =3D=3D Russ Housley writes: >=20 > Russ> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that > Russ> limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF > Russ> IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author > Russ> count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it > Russ> clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. >=20 > [There is this concept in US copyright law called a joint work. I'm > ignoring that concept for the moment basically because I don't > understand how it applies to either software or text developed using > an open process. As far as I can tell, no one else understands it > either. Please be aware that this may be a huge gap in my advice.] >=20 > So, here we have a conflicting definitions problem. >=20 > The author of a work retains the copyright interest. That's true if > if I'm listed as an author or not. >=20 > If I write text and do not assign the copyright to someone, I retain > copyright interest in that text. >=20 > So the sixth person still owns the copyright interest in the text they > write even if they are not listed. >=20 > That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed > significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to > do anything interesting with that text. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >=20 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:09 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006n3-Nq; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyZG-0002UR-Aj; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:58:50 -0400 Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu ([18.7.7.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyZF-0008Mb-2d; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:58:50 -0400 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id k4OIwl9I002035; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [18.18.1.160] (NOME-KING.MIT.EDU [18.18.1.160]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as raeburn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id k4OIwh1U017583 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2006 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <564F97AA-E7B7-4291-B4B9-4B6B3BEFFE64@mit.edu> From: Ken Raeburn Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:58:38 -0400 To: Russ Housley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.750) X-Spam-Score: 1.217 X-Spam-Level: * (1.217) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, Sam Hartman , ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On May 24, 2006, at 14:42, Russ Housley wrote: > If the people with copyright interest are the combination of the > authors plus the contributors, then we need to specify this in a BCP. We might also want to suggest that the acknowledgment specifically indicate if someone contributed text, as a text-contributor may have rights that an idea-contributor does not. With the default assumption being that "contributed", if not clarified, means "contributed text and/or ideas". There's also the related issue of text taken from a previous RFC -- I would think it would suffice to acknowledge the source of the text, rather than merging contributor/author lists. (Though if the previous author list is small and the copied text is large, specific, explicit acknowledgment in the new document is probably the polite thing to do.) But either way, those authors may also retain copyright interest in the new document. > Does the RFC Editor have to contact the members of both lists > during Auth48? If so, I would suggest that the RFf Editor only > needs a positive reply from the authors, but that the contributors > only need to respond if they discover a change that is needed. I would think the RFC Editor probably does not need to; after all, isn't the short list also (a superset of) the people already acting as editors on behalf of the working group, other contributors, etc? Those people may choose to include various contributors in the Auth48 review, or not. Ken _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:14 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mV-EB; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyKF-0003rt-Oi; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:43:19 -0400 Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyKE-0007Ts-EW; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:43:19 -0400 Received: from lion.cs.columbia.edu (IDENT:V/5I5ui6pBaxCHL+Xl+Eb7vcuYPA4cyv@lion.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.16.120]) by cs.columbia.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k4OIhEX6012439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2006 14:43:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.59.16.206] (chairpc.win.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.16.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by lion.cs.columbia.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k4OIhCBB023727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2006 14:43:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4474A934.7080000@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:43:00 -0400 From: Henning Schulzrinne User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vijay Devarapallli References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_CRUFT 0, __USER_AGENT 0' X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, Sam Hartman , ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Authorship discussions have a long history in the sciences. I'm not aware of any other scientific or technical publication that limits the number of authors. (Indeed, I have had to extend the maximum author count on a largish conference management system I run [edas.info] a few times.) The current limit of 5 seems to be motivated by formatting constraints and maybe by the notion that "vanity" publishing should be prevented. It is not clear to me that these motivations have legal standing and essentially, for practical purposes, force authors to give up their rights. In the past, I know that for some drafts, this limit has been extended when the AD made the right noises to the RFC editor, so it is not universally observed. My understanding is that "contributors" generally have inferior rights, not much different from those individuals acknowledged in the acknowledgment section of technical papers and RFCs. After some of the recent science scandals, there also seems to be a movement afoot (e.g., for Science and Nature) to force all authors to take responsibility for the paper and its content. That's a flip-side, also from an IPR perspective: If somebody can plausibly claim that they just got added to the author list without their consent, they could weasle out of the IPR disclosure rules. At least from my experience, it is not uncommon that I-D authors add others as a courtesy and, currently, nobody seems to check whether these authors consented to being an author... Henning Vijay Devarapallli wrote: > On 5/24/06, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed >> significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to >> do anything interesting with that text. > > typically the unlisted authors are ignored. > > also during the AUTH48 period, the RFC Editor contacts only the listed > authors. > > Vijay > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:09 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mr-KG; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyRR-000847-2V for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:50:45 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyRP-0007wJ-S0 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:50:45 -0400 Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id h31so935468wxd for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YyqOLAqns5KBp+F+/GpZV50PezSBIVsxqLP3NzhqtBVzA458Tqh3QRfYf1OlnX7kPXk1WqkO6D57fnkH86FnoADRTRuVfPmPYaSWoZ31YgfFFQCUo8HmgjjR1JeMnmURXZl+DUxZFYmw1r++dOPCf8EdU83juOuG2nZ0sWsxM4s= Received: by 10.70.48.18 with SMTP id v18mr8103262wxv; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.84.19 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:50:43 -0700 From: "Vijay Devarapallli" To: "Bob Braden" In-Reply-To: <200605241842.LAA14710@gra.isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200605241842.LAA14710@gra.isi.edu> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu, ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1713297470==" Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org --===============1713297470== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline T24gNS8yNC8wNiwgQm9iIEJyYWRlbiA8YnJhZGVuQGlzaS5lZHU+IHdyb3RlOgo+Cj4KPiAgICo+ IFRoYXQgbWVhbnMgaWYgeW91IGhhdmUgdW5saXN0ZWQgYXV0aG9ycyB3aG8gaGF2ZSBjb250cmli dXRlZAo+ICAgKj4gc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgY2h1bmtzIG9mIHRleHQsIHlvdSBzdGlsbCBuZWVkIHRv IGdldCB0aGVpciBjbGVhcmFuY2UgdG8KPiAgICo+IGRvIGFueXRoaW5nIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHdp dGggdGhhdCB0ZXh0Lgo+ICAgKj4KPgo+IFdobyBkZWNpZGVzIHdoYXQgY29uc3RpdHV0ZXMgYSAi c2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgY2h1bmsiPwoKdGhlIHByaW1hcnkgYXV0aG9yICh0aGVyZSBpcyBhbHdheXMg b25lIHBlcnNvbiB3aG8gbWFpbnRhaW5zIHRoZQpYTUwgc291cmNlKSBhbmQgdGhlIFdHIGNoYWly cz8KClZpamF5Cg== --===============1713297470== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec --===============1713297470==-- From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006n8-RD; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiydU-0007c3-UK; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:03:12 -0400 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiydT-00008V-Io; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:03:12 -0400 Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k4OJ32LB011455; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15610; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:02:58 -0400 Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF0E2488AF@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> From: "Gray, Eric" To: Henning Schulzrinne , Vijay Devarapallli Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:02:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a87a9cdae4ac5d3fbeee75cd0026d632 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Sam Hartman , ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] RE: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Henning, IRT BCP 78/79 IPR statements, it's actually worse than you indicate. The issue is that (because of the "Note Well") you can't effectively "take back" a contribution and (because of the need for proper attribution) you really cannot de-list someone who has made any significant contribution to the document. Because of the wording in current IPR BCPs, however, any "author" is not only agreeing to be responsible for IPR that he (or she) may have in their contribution, but also any IPR they may know of that relates to other contributions made in an RFC for which they are a listed "author". One seriously detrimental effect of these considerations is that this actively discourages an RFC "author" (and possibly any other contributor) from trying to determine if his (or her) employer actually has any IPR in the technology about which they are writing - and, thus, encouraging a separation between those who do things and those who write about it... -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu] --> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:43 PM --> To: Vijay Devarapallli --> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; Sam Hartman; --> ipr-wg@ietf.org; techspec@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: RFC Author Count and IPR --> --> Authorship discussions have a long history in the sciences. I'm not --> aware of any other scientific or technical publication that --> limits the --> number of authors. (Indeed, I have had to extend the maximum author --> count on a largish conference management system I run --> [edas.info] a few --> times.) The current limit of 5 seems to be motivated by formatting --> constraints and maybe by the notion that "vanity" --> publishing should be --> prevented. It is not clear to me that these motivations have legal --> standing and essentially, for practical purposes, force --> authors to give --> up their rights. In the past, I know that for some drafts, --> this limit --> has been extended when the AD made the right noises to the --> RFC editor, --> so it is not universally observed. --> --> My understanding is that "contributors" generally have --> inferior rights, --> not much different from those individuals acknowledged in the --> acknowledgment section of technical papers and RFCs. --> --> After some of the recent science scandals, there also seems to be a --> movement afoot (e.g., for Science and Nature) to force all --> authors to --> take responsibility for the paper and its content. That's a --> flip-side, --> also from an IPR perspective: If somebody can plausibly --> claim that they --> just got added to the author list without their consent, they could --> weasle out of the IPR disclosure rules. At least from my --> experience, it --> is not uncommon that I-D authors add others as a courtesy and, --> currently, nobody seems to check whether these authors consented to --> being an author... --> --> Henning --> --> Vijay Devarapallli wrote: --> > On 5/24/06, Sam Hartman wrote: --> > --> >> That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed --> >> significant chunks of text, you still need to get their --> clearance to --> >> do anything interesting with that text. --> > --> > typically the unlisted authors are ignored. --> > --> > also during the AUTH48 period, the RFC Editor contacts --> only the listed --> > authors. --> > --> > Vijay --> > --> > --> > --> ------------------------------------------------------------ --> ------------ --> > --> > _______________________________________________ --> > Ietf mailing list --> > Ietf@ietf.org --> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mb-H9; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyP4-0007Gm-Tr; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:18 -0400 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyP3-0007lz-Gi; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:18 -0400 Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k4OImGLB011003; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13789; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:15 -0400 Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF0E2488AD@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> From: "Gray, Eric" To: Sam Hartman , Russ Housley Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] RE: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Sam, et al, There are so many things tied up in this, that I am afraid it is bound to turn into a rat-hole. For one thing, I thought Russ was talking about the complication that arise from whether or not the BCP 78/79 stuff applies to people who made some contribution but are not listed as "Authors". I may have missed his point, but this probably is an issue as there are other things in IPR than "copyrights". For another, there is a clear distinction between attribution and being listed as an author. Most drafts I've seen acknowledge the people making contributions. Also, RFCs are not (at least usually) a compilation of related works by separate authors. An RFC typically requires some unification and typically this is performed by one or more editors. Because of churn-and-merge complexity, it is usually the case that there is only one "editor" at any given moment, and the list of "token holders" is both well defined and small - consequently is is quite reasonable to ask that a long list of authors be replaced by a shorter list of the people who actually took turns as editors. I think the biggest issue is that the RFC Editor has established guidelines that use a fixed number. This can lead to rather arbitrary decisions about who is an editor, author or contributor. Probably a better approach would be to explicitly define what the RFC Editor means by the terms contributor, author, editor and - perhaps - something even more specific that that (e.g. - final editor?) and then saying that some number of names MAY be listed on the first page and that the approach to determining what names should be included is to pick the category that has no more than that many in the list. I was pretty much under the impression that this is the informal approach used now. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu] --> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:06 PM --> To: Russ Housley --> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; ietf@ietf.org; --> techspec@ietf.org; ipr-wg@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: RFC Author Count and IPR --> --> >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: --> --> Russ> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that --> Russ> limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF --> Russ> IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author --> Russ> count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it --> Russ> clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. --> --> [There is this concept in US copyright law called a joint work. I'm --> ignoring that concept for the moment basically because I don't --> understand how it applies to either software or text developed using --> an open process. As far as I can tell, no one else understands it --> either. Please be aware that this may be a huge gap in my advice.] --> --> So, here we have a conflicting definitions problem. --> --> The author of a work retains the copyright interest. That's true if --> if I'm listed as an author or not. --> --> If I write text and do not assign the copyright to someone, I retain --> copyright interest in that text. --> --> So the sixth person still owns the copyright interest in --> the text they --> write even if they are not listed. --> --> That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed --> significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to --> do anything interesting with that text. --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006nO-Ui; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiysF-00074q-RF for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:18:27 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiysF-0000om-PZ for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:18:27 -0400 Received: from omr5.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.55] helo=ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyeF-0005rY-Nf for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:04:06 -0400 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com ([10.49.6.68]) by ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4OJ3wfT014352 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:03:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 2669 invoked by uid 78); 24 May 2006 19:03:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.12?) (andy@andybierman.com@24.24.133.237) by 10.49.36.68 with SMTP; 24 May 2006 19:03:46 -0000 Message-ID: <4474AE1A.4050701@andybierman.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:03:54 -0700 From: Andy Bierman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Harrington References: <0ac301c67f5f$6f129fb0$0400a8c0@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <0ac301c67f5f$6f129fb0$0400a8c0@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, 'Russ Housley' , 'Sam Hartman' , ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org David Harrington wrote: > If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the > first page of the document. > > It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the > document in an contributors section. It's not just the first page. It also affects the reference citation used in the RFC Index and all other RFCs. I believe the 5 author rule was used as justification to remove most of the original SNMPv2 authors from the author list and all further reference citations, when the RFC 1901-1909 series was advanced. I don't really understand what purpose this serves. > > I also have concerns about who should be listed as an "author" and > have copyrights when a work is developed by a WG. The demand to do > things with IETF documents beyond IETF standards work seems to be > growing, so it will be an increasingly difficult problem if we do not > identify all the people who contributed significant portions of a > document (where significant is of course open to debate). There is a problem with companies piling on the authors for I-D proposals to make it look like lots of people worked really hard on it and all agree on the contents. (This is hardly ever the case.) Then when you go to WG draft, there are already 5 or 7 names as authors, and the WG wants to add more. I think then, you have to pick a real Editor (responsible for all edits all the way through AUTH48) and just list that person as Editor on the first page and citations, and put everybody in the Authors section in the back. IMO, this is different than removing the author(s) of a previous version of an RFC. I object to that practice. > > dbh Andy _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006mb-H9; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyP4-0007Gm-Tr; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:18 -0400 Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyP3-0007lz-Gi; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:18 -0400 Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k4OImGLB011003; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13789; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:15 -0400 Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF0E2488AD@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> From: "Gray, Eric" To: Sam Hartman , Russ Housley Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:48:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] RE: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Sam, et al, There are so many things tied up in this, that I am afraid it is bound to turn into a rat-hole. For one thing, I thought Russ was talking about the complication that arise from whether or not the BCP 78/79 stuff applies to people who made some contribution but are not listed as "Authors". I may have missed his point, but this probably is an issue as there are other things in IPR than "copyrights". For another, there is a clear distinction between attribution and being listed as an author. Most drafts I've seen acknowledge the people making contributions. Also, RFCs are not (at least usually) a compilation of related works by separate authors. An RFC typically requires some unification and typically this is performed by one or more editors. Because of churn-and-merge complexity, it is usually the case that there is only one "editor" at any given moment, and the list of "token holders" is both well defined and small - consequently is is quite reasonable to ask that a long list of authors be replaced by a shorter list of the people who actually took turns as editors. I think the biggest issue is that the RFC Editor has established guidelines that use a fixed number. This can lead to rather arbitrary decisions about who is an editor, author or contributor. Probably a better approach would be to explicitly define what the RFC Editor means by the terms contributor, author, editor and - perhaps - something even more specific that that (e.g. - final editor?) and then saying that some number of names MAY be listed on the first page and that the approach to determining what names should be included is to pick the category that has no more than that many in the list. I was pretty much under the impression that this is the informal approach used now. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu] --> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:06 PM --> To: Russ Housley --> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; ietf@ietf.org; --> techspec@ietf.org; ipr-wg@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: RFC Author Count and IPR --> --> >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley writes: --> --> Russ> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that --> Russ> limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF --> Russ> IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author --> Russ> count to five people. Recent IPR WG discussions make it --> Russ> clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. --> --> [There is this concept in US copyright law called a joint work. I'm --> ignoring that concept for the moment basically because I don't --> understand how it applies to either software or text developed using --> an open process. As far as I can tell, no one else understands it --> either. Please be aware that this may be a huge gap in my advice.] --> --> So, here we have a conflicting definitions problem. --> --> The author of a work retains the copyright interest. That's true if --> if I'm listed as an author or not. --> --> If I write text and do not assign the copyright to someone, I retain --> copyright interest in that text. --> --> So the sixth person still owns the copyright interest in --> the text they --> write even if they are not listed. --> --> That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed --> significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to --> do anything interesting with that text. --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 15:38:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizB6-0006nO-Ui; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiysF-00074q-RF for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:18:27 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiysF-0000om-PZ for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:18:27 -0400 Received: from omr5.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.55] helo=ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiyeF-0005rY-Nf for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:04:06 -0400 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com ([10.49.6.68]) by ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4OJ3wfT014352 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:03:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 2669 invoked by uid 78); 24 May 2006 19:03:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.12?) (andy@andybierman.com@24.24.133.237) by 10.49.36.68 with SMTP; 24 May 2006 19:03:46 -0000 Message-ID: <4474AE1A.4050701@andybierman.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:03:54 -0700 From: Andy Bierman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Harrington References: <0ac301c67f5f$6f129fb0$0400a8c0@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <0ac301c67f5f$6f129fb0$0400a8c0@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:37:54 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, 'Russ Housley' , 'Sam Hartman' , ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org David Harrington wrote: > If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the > first page of the document. > > It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the > document in an contributors section. It's not just the first page. It also affects the reference citation used in the RFC Index and all other RFCs. I believe the 5 author rule was used as justification to remove most of the original SNMPv2 authors from the author list and all further reference citations, when the RFC 1901-1909 series was advanced. I don't really understand what purpose this serves. > > I also have concerns about who should be listed as an "author" and > have copyrights when a work is developed by a WG. The demand to do > things with IETF documents beyond IETF standards work seems to be > growing, so it will be an increasingly difficult problem if we do not > identify all the people who contributed significant portions of a > document (where significant is of course open to debate). There is a problem with companies piling on the authors for I-D proposals to make it look like lots of people worked really hard on it and all agree on the contents. (This is hardly ever the case.) Then when you go to WG draft, there are already 5 or 7 names as authors, and the WG wants to add more. I think then, you have to pick a real Editor (responsible for all edits all the way through AUTH48) and just list that person as Editor on the first page and citations, and put everybody in the Authors section in the back. IMO, this is different than removing the author(s) of a previous version of an RFC. I object to that practice. > > dbh Andy _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 16:05:06 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizbN-0001py-QD; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:05:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizbN-0001pn-6P; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:05:05 -0400 Received: from mserv3.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.101] helo=smtp.uoregon.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizbI-0004MF-P9; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:05:05 -0400 Received: from geoduck.uoregon.edu (geoduck.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.113]) by smtp.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4OK50WM000519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2006 13:05:00 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:05:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" X-X-Sender: llynch@geoduck.uoregon.edu To: Bob Braden Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR In-Reply-To: <200605241856.LAA14721@gra.isi.edu> Message-ID: References: <200605241856.LAA14721@gra.isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1480/Wed May 24 09:45:51 2006 on mserv3 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote: > > *> > *> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the > *> number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC > *> Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR > *> WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. > > > Note that the number 5 is not magic here. When the phenomenon of > balooning lists of authors (say, one or more from every telecom vendor > you ever heard of) was first noticed, there was a discussion on the > IETF list. The community consensus was that author list inflation was > "un-IETF". I don't recall the details (there may have been a last call > from the IESG, but I am not sure), but it was left to the RFC Editor to > formulate the precise guideline. Five seemed like a reasonable limit. > Do you like 6 better? > > We do tend to push back (via the WG chairs) a bit on more than 5 > authors, since we knew that if there were many exceptions granted, > everyone would discover they needed an exception, defeating the purpose > of the limitation. We have found that almost everyone affected by > the limit has understood the problem and been very cooperative in > keeping to it. > > I do not recall the IPR issue raised before. a little history: 28 authors! http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/authdistr.html 20 authors! http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/authdistr.html Bob - I think the 5 author rule applies to the listing in the ID/RFC header and not to the authors listed under "Author Information" - is that correct? - lel > Bob Braden for the RFC Editor > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 16:23:39 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiztE-0002U3-VJ; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:23:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiztD-0002SB-1y; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:23:31 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiztB-0005bX-LO; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:23:31 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4OKMjR08959; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id NAA14786; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605242022.NAA14786@gra.isi.edu> To: braden@ISI.EDU, llynch@darkwing.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Lucy Lynch wrote: *> a little history: *> *> 28 authors! *> http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/authdistr.html *> *> 20 authors! *> http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/authdistr.html *> *> Bob - *> *> I think the 5 author rule applies to the listing in the ID/RFC header *> and not to the authors listed under "Author Information" - is that *> correct? *> *> - lel *> Lucy, Please see the URL I posted earlier; the policy was carefully crafted. I would avoid calling it a "rule". We think of it as a guideline, a threshold below which no discussion is necessary. Bob Braden *> > Bob Braden for the RFC Editor *> > *> > *> > *> > _______________________________________________ *> > Ietf mailing list *> > Ietf@ietf.org *> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf *> > *> *> -- *> Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services *> Computing Center University of Oregon *> llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 *> _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 16:35:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj04v-0006JC-Rf; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:35:37 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj04t-0006Ik-Je; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:35:35 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj04s-0006iQ-7c; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:35:35 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4OKYYR12917; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:34:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id NAA14792; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605242034.NAA14792@gra.isi.edu> To: braden@ISI.EDU, llynch@darkwing.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org *> Bob - *> *> I think the 5 author rule applies to the listing in the ID/RFC header *> and not to the authors listed under "Author Information" - is that *> correct? *> *> - lel *> Lucy, I neglected to answer your question directly. The authors are, by definition, the people listed on the first page. There is no such section as "Author Information"; probably you mean "Authors' Addresses". The rules are spelled out in RFC2223bis, section 2.12. At present Authors' Addreses section lists only authors, i.e., those listed on the first page. The rules say that a Contributors section can list additional contact information. Bob Braden *> > Bob Braden for the RFC Editor *> > *> > *> > *> > _______________________________________________ *> > Ietf mailing list *> > Ietf@ietf.org *> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf *> > *> *> -- *> Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services *> Computing Center University of Oregon *> llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 *> _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 16:53:27 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0MA-0002lG-N2; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:53:26 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0MA-0002j6-4u; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:53:26 -0400 Received: from mserv1.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.40] helo=smtp.uoregon.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0M8-000833-Nz; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:53:26 -0400 Received: from geoduck.uoregon.edu (geoduck.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.113]) by smtp.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4OKrFZC021601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2006 13:53:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" X-X-Sender: llynch@geoduck.uoregon.edu To: Bob Braden Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR In-Reply-To: <200605242034.NAA14792@gra.isi.edu> Message-ID: References: <200605242034.NAA14792@gra.isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1480/Wed May 24 09:45:51 2006 on mserv1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote: > > *> Bob - > *> > *> I think the 5 author rule applies to the listing in the ID/RFC header > *> and not to the authors listed under "Author Information" - is that > *> correct? > *> > *> - lel > *> > > Lucy, > > I neglected to answer your question directly. The authors are, by > definition, the people listed on the first page. > > There is no such section as "Author Information"; probably you mean > "Authors' Addresses". The rules are spelled out in RFC2223bis, section > 2.12. At present Authors' Addreses section lists only authors, i.e., > those listed on the first page. The rules say that a Contributors > section can list additional contact information. Bob - Following Jari's link to the document (ID) with 20 authors I found: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt which lists 3 editors on the front page and includes a section (17) titled "Author Information" which includes 20 addresses. The RFC with 28 authors is "Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access" and all 28 and included on the front page. I'm just looking at current practice and trying to understand how address listings relate to authorship and IPR. Not arguing with you, just confused. - lel > Bob Braden > > *> > Bob Braden for the RFC Editor > *> > > *> > > *> > > *> > _______________________________________________ > *> > Ietf mailing list > *> > Ietf@ietf.org > *> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > *> > > *> > *> -- > *> Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services > *> Computing Center University of Oregon > *> llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 > *> > -- Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 16:59:41 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0SD-0007R1-BK; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:59:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0SA-0007QY-Tw; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:59:38 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0S9-00008l-Gp; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:59:38 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4OKx3R22336; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id NAA14811; Wed, 24 May 2006 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> To: braden@ISI.EDU, llynch@darkwing.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org *> *> Bob - *> *> Following Jari's link to the document (ID) with 20 authors I found: *> *> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt *> *> which lists 3 editors on the front page and includes a section (17) *> titled "Author Information" which includes 20 addresses. Lucy, You are suggesting that the definition of "author" is determined by some tool that produces the pretty graph. I don't think so. In all documentation related to the RFC Editor, an author is a person listed on the first page. I cannot explain what was in the mind of the person writing the tool. Bob Braden _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 17:14:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0gb-0001gD-Ro; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:14:33 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0ga-0001fz-Mm; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:14:32 -0400 Received: from mserv2.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.41] helo=smtp.uoregon.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj0gZ-0001DL-Aa; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:14:32 -0400 Received: from geoduck.uoregon.edu (geoduck.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.113]) by smtp.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4OLEMml030283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2006 14:14:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:14:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" X-X-Sender: llynch@geoduck.uoregon.edu To: Bob Braden Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR In-Reply-To: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> Message-ID: References: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1480/Wed May 24 09:45:51 2006 on mserv2 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote: > > > *> > *> Bob - > *> > *> Following Jari's link to the document (ID) with 20 authors I found: > *> > *> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt > *> > *> which lists 3 editors on the front page and includes a section (17) > *> titled "Author Information" which includes 20 addresses. > > Lucy, > > You are suggesting that the definition of "author" is determined by some > tool that produces the pretty graph. I don't think so. In all > documentation related to the RFC Editor, an author is a person listed > on the first page. I cannot explain what was in the mind of the > person writing the tool. Bob - This is exactly the question I'm trying to get clarity on. Russ's initial email implied that there may be a submerged IPR issue if we limit the number of authors listed on the front page AND hold that document "authors" continue to hold IP rights. I don't know enough about the history of IP ownership vs acknowledged authorship to be able to tell how serious an issue this may be. Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the given document's Intellectual Property? - lel > Bob Braden > -- Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 17:44:11 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj19H-0001pl-Nn; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:44:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj19F-0001pU-ML; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:44:09 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj19E-00034x-AX; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:44:09 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4OLgmR07913; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:42:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id OAA14857; Wed, 24 May 2006 14:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605242142.OAA14857@gra.isi.edu> To: braden@ISI.EDU, llynch@darkwing.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org *> *> Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship *> between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the *> given document's Intellectual Property? *> *> - lel *> *> Lucy, It sounds like you need a lawyer. Bob Braden _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 24 17:55:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj1Kc-0007nn-VG; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:55:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj1Kc-0007nc-IN; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:55:54 -0400 Received: from mserv2.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.41] helo=smtp.uoregon.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj1Kb-00040G-7L; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:55:54 -0400 Received: from geoduck.uoregon.edu (geoduck.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.113]) by smtp.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4OLtoC3031263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2006 14:55:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:55:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" X-X-Sender: llynch@geoduck.uoregon.edu To: Bob Braden Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR In-Reply-To: <200605242142.OAA14857@gra.isi.edu> Message-ID: References: <200605242142.OAA14857@gra.isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1480/Wed May 24 09:45:51 2006 on mserv2 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote: > > *> > *> Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship > *> between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the > *> given document's Intellectual Property? > *> > *> - lel > *> > *> > > > Lucy, > > It sounds like you need a lawyer. Scary. I was afraid you'd say that. - lel > Bob Braden > -- Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 00:32:47 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7WV-0003zl-Fd; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:32:35 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7WU-0003zf-EF for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:32:34 -0400 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7WT-0004A7-3M for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:32:34 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4P4hkP1025333; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:43:47 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:32:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE2636@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:32:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Hi Paul, See my comments inline. Thanks, Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:39 PM > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt > > > The terminology used for who signs off on post-IESG changes is > inconsistent in the document. It is fine that this document doesn't > specify who does the sign-off (that's an IETF decision), but the > document should be consistent in who it says is doing it. The wording > is "appropriate technical representatives" in 3.3, but "appropriate > IETF party (often the document shepherd, but sometimes, by referral, > the IESG)" in 3.7. Agree > > ----- > > In section 3.4: > o Req-REFVAL-1 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that > references within specifications are available. > That should probably be "...that all references..."; some of them are > sure to be available. :-) Agree > > ----- > > In section 4.1: > o Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that > the time required for a pre-publication review should > be under 10 > days. The actual performance targets and metrics are > expected to > be determined as part of the contract negotiation process. > The term "pre-publication review" is not defined anywhere in the > document, and it probably should, given this consensus statement. It should probably refer to section 3.1. > > ----- > > Section 5 talks about "potential issues" for the IETF. Two bullet > items do not match the earlier part of the document. > > o Pre- vs Post-Approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post- > approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF > processes must > be adapted to make use of this service. The processes > for post- > approval editing can also be streamlined. > Section 3.1 makes a requirement that the emphasis must switch. So, > "If" should probably be "When". I'm not sure that 3.1 requires that the emphasis must switch to pre-approval reviews. We are putting a requirement that the publisher support pre-approval reviews, but we have not yet decided if the IETF will really make use of it. > > o Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers: IETF needs > to clearly > identify the naming/numbering schemes and classes of > documents to > which those names and numbers apply. Furthermore, the > responsibility for allocation of those names/numbers > needs to be > identified. > Section 3.8 says that it is the IETF publisher's responsibility, so > the second sentence should probably be removed. This wording should be cleaned up. The idea was that the technical publisher would own and allocate the RFC number series. Other identifiers might not be owned by the technical publisher. So the technical publisher would be directed to assign a given number/name to a document. The problem is that the handling of these non-RFC identifiers is not stable. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 00:35:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7Zl-0005pX-Pk; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:35:57 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7Zk-0005pS-JL for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:35:56 -0400 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7Zj-0004TU-8W for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:35:56 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4P4lBCj025735; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:47:11 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:35:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE2637@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] When to do pre-edit Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:35:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I agree. Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:16 PM > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] When to do pre-edit > > > In section 3.1: > o Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an > editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide > feedback to the authors to improve quality of the > documents. This > review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with > previously published documents. > This requirement might be modified to read "...documents before or > during WG last call...", because some WG chairs may not know when a > document is ready for WG last call until the last minute, and making > them wait for the WG last call could be inappropriate. The technical > publisher should help WG chairs understand that doing this review > during WG last call could result in many more changes than they > expected, but still let the WG chairs make the decision when to have > the review done. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 00:38:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7cG-0007N0-Dv; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:38:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7cF-0007Mg-OF for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:38:31 -0400 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7cE-0004hD-DN for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:38:31 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4P4nkJG026074; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:49:46 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:38:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE2638@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Validation of formal languages Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:38:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org See inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:37 PM > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] Validation of formal languages > > > Section 3.5 that seems out of place in that it is the only part of > this document that says "the IETF technical publisher will review > this part of documents for technical correctness". It makes sense to > say "if automated tools are available to check formal languages, the > IETF technical publisher should run the tools late in the editing > process", but not to make it seem like that validation is the job of > the technical publisher. I agree. It was intended to refer to validation using tools. > > This section might also add a requirement that the IETF technical > publisher should not change any examples (changing words, > reformatting with line breaks, and so on) without explicitly alerting > the document authors. Some formal languages are quite sensitive to > byte counts and line breaks. In general, I think the publisher should work with the authors for any changes required to formal language sections. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 00:41:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7eq-00005X-QX; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:41:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7ep-00005S-PQ for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:41:11 -0400 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fj7eo-00058T-EV for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 00:41:11 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4P4qQtF026374; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:52:26 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:41:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE263B@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:41:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org All the requirements use the "should" language. It is hard to actually mandate anything since what the publisher will do is ultimately determined by the contract. Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:17 PM > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking > > > In section 3.3: > o Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents > should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the > appropriate technical representatives as defined in the IETF > processes. > Why is this a "should" instead of a "must"? For something as > important as changes made after the WG and IESG reviews, it would > seem that tracking and sign-off would be mandatory. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 04:39:01 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBMz-0003HK-Ac; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:39:01 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBMw-0003Gy-MC; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:38:58 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBMv-0003Ho-Cs; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:38:58 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C582596EE; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:38:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01739-06; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:38:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.57] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17C32596E3; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:38:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44756D15.3060107@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:38:45 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipr-wg@ietf.org References: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF0E2488AF@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> In-Reply-To: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF0E2488AF@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Tracking IPR (Re: RFC Author Count and IPR) X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Just one note on this long thread: At present, the IETF secretariat does *not* attempt to track who has copyright rights on what parts of the text. Neither, as far as I know, does anyone else (WG chair or editors), apart from following the RFC 2026 rule that "significant contributions should be acknowledged" - this is commonly done by Authors, Contributors and Acknowledgement sections, which rarely point to specific pieces of text. Claiming that we track copyrights on pieces of text, and then not doing it, would, in my opinion, be extremely stupid for multiple reasons. So I want to make it perfectly clear that the IETF is NOT doing this. Harald _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 04:44:48 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBSa-00061U-Ge; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:44:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBSY-00060t-HU; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:44:46 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBSX-0003re-6j; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:44:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3B62596F2; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:43:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02145-04; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:43:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.57] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17AFB2596EE; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:43:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44756E72.4020200@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:44:34 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Braden Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR References: <200605241856.LAA14721@gra.isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <200605241856.LAA14721@gra.isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, housley@vigilsec.com, ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Bob Braden wrote: > *> > *> I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the > *> number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC > *> Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR > *> WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain significant copyright. > > > Note that the number 5 is not magic here. When the phenomenon of > balooning lists of authors (say, one or more from every telecom vendor > you ever heard of) was first noticed, there was a discussion on the > IETF list. The community consensus was that author list inflation was > "un-IETF". I don't recall the details (there may have been a last call > from the IESG, but I am not sure), but it was left to the RFC Editor to > formulate the precise guideline. The Last Call on draft-rfc-editor-author-lists was issued on May 20, 2002, and the IESG approved that document on August 27, 2002, according to the tracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=8778&rfc_flag=0 On Jan 3, 2005, it was marked "dead" based on the fact that the text had been incorporated into the 2223bis draft. So it's been almost 4 years since IETF consensus was declared for this policy. Harald _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 04:46:36 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBUK-0006S7-Um; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:46:36 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBUJ-0006Oz-Ar; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:46:35 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjBUI-0004As-1Y; Thu, 25 May 2006 04:46:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7847A2596F2; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:45:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02145-06; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:45:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.57] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327AB2596EE; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:45:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44756EDF.1020408@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:46:23 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Lucy E. Lynch" Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR References: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, Bob Braden , ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Lucy E. Lynch wrote: > Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship > between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the > given document's Intellectual Property? I can answer that one... No. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 08:27:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjEvy-00030g-5s; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:27:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjEvx-00030E-5s for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:27:21 -0400 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjEsI-0004RF-47 for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:23:37 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4PCYntT029154 for ; Thu, 25 May 2006 07:34:51 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 25 May 2006 07:23:31 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE26C0@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:23:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5216aa5b0df24d46eaed76d4f65aa31 Subject: [Techspec] FW: Gen-art review of draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Copied to this list with Elwyn's permission. Stephen Hayes -----Original Message----- From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd@dial.pipex.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:13 AM To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) Cc: General Area Review Team; Mary Barnes; Allison Mankin Subject: Re: Gen-art review of draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt Some thoughts on your responses in line. Given that there is at least one matter of discussion and opinion, you are welcome to copy this to the techspec list or I can raise the issue separately. /Elwyn Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > Hi Elwyn, > > Thanks for reviewing the document. My responses are inline: > > Stephen > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd@dial.pipex.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:43 PM >> To: General Area Review Team >> Cc: Mary Barnes; Allison Mankin; Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) >> Subject: Gen-art review of draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt >> >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for >> draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt. >> >> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> . >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other >> Last Call comments you may receive. >> >> Summary >> ======= >> This is not quite ready for publication as Informational. I >> have a number of issues with the document and a fair number >> of editorial points. >> >> Missing Items: >> ============== >> Interaction of Technical Publisher with 'IETF Family' >> approval processes: >> The recently published draft-iab-rfc-editor-00 uses the >> concept of 'document streams' coming from various parts of >> the IETF Family >> (others have noted that a better term is needed) >> each with its own approval authority and process. I think >> using this term in section 2 would be useful. >> > > It is true that section 2 describes only the IETF stream. The actual requirements attempt to be a bit more generic in terms of who has approval authority (so that people developing requirements for non-IETF streams can reuse them), but probably needs to be vetted for an IESG bias. I am happy with scoping the applicability to the IETF stream (with reuse encouraged by other streams). > Generally I think this (the genrality) is successful. s2 talks about documents 'processed' by the IETF/IESG, IAB and IRTF/IRSG. Adding something like 'Each of these processes produces a document stream with it own approval process.' would cover the point. > >> The >> requirements should include the need for the technical >> publisher to publish all documents sent to it by the approval >> authority for a stream (and the IAB is allowed to approve new >> streams - but there would have to be negotiation on capacity >> potentially). Effectively this approval maps into an >> instruction to the technical publisher to perform the editing >> task (defines the pieces of work the technical publisher has >> to do). >> > > Isn't this a meta-requirement or at least a higher order requirement? If it will eventually be covered by draft-iab-rfc-editor, does it need to be covered here? > I don't think so. Basically this is a requirement on how the work of the tech publisher is started for each document. We talk about 'post-approval' but it is only implicit that this is what triggers the rest of the publication process. It is the authorization for work to commence. > >> There is a subsidiary issue here: If pre-approval >> review and editing is introduced, there will have to be some >> sort of formal request from the approving authority for the >> stream for the technical publisher to do a pre-approval >> review. See the comments on s3.1 below. >> > > Section 5 talks about the need to adapt IETF processes to handle pre-approval review. Is something more needed? > >> RFC Editor presence at IETF meetings: >> The current RFC Editor is expected to send representatives to >> IETF meetings. This is not in the requirements - is this an >> oversight or deliberate? See discussion on s3.19 and s3.21 below. >> >> > > It was an oversight to omit the help-desk function. > I think there possibly needs to be a discussion on the list of whether there is really a requirement for personal presence - but given that it happens at the moment, the community needs to decide if it really needs/wants it. Personally I have only consulted the RFC Editor presence once, but on the other hand it is nice to get some sort of idea of the face behind the editing 'blue pencil'. > >> Minor Issues: >> ============= >> >> s1: RFC2850 and the RFC Editor charter which IAB is working >> on use the term 'Editorial Management'. I think it would >> useful to explain that what is covered in this document is >> essentially that. >> > > It is certainly possible to indicate that these requirements cover "editoral management and publication" to tie back to 2850 and the charter. However, to me the term "editoral management" is meaningless. > Interesting! I can actually do a course in Editorial Management here (should I have a mind to) so people in the industry have some view of what it means. E.g., www.train4publishing.co.uk/content/occstd/editorialm.doc. >> s2: Is the policy on internationalization in fact covered by >> the statement in s3.10 that the IETf only publishes in English. >> > > I think the prose in a publication is expected to be in English. This does not preclude code points, names, etc. being in other languages. Does this need to be clarified? > On reflection probably not. >> s2.1; s3.7, Req-POSTCORR-2: The term 'document shepherd' is >> (I believe) currently only defined in the expired draft >> draft-ietf-proto-shepherding-00.txt (Allison!!). It needs to >> be defined here. >> >> > This should probably be generalized to "appropriate techincal representative" or something similar. > > OK >> s3.1, Req-PREEDIT-1: Pre-approval review is specified to >> occur prior to WG last call. There are two issues here: >> 1. Individual submissions (via AD) and some other documents >> (IAB) don't go through WG last call. >> > > Should probably be generalized to indicate that it is a review before the document is approved (which I guess is somewhat self-evident). I think it was originally assumed that this tool would mainly be used on WG documents, but it is a symptom of the fact that we don't really know how we would use pre-approval review. > > Indeed so. Being less definite and referring to the discussion we need to have (xref to s5.1) would be useful. This could explicitly mention that we need to decide how this would be authorized also (covering the next point). >> 2. Having the technical publisher do a pre-approval review >> requires the technical publisher to expend effort - since >> there will be a contractual arrangement in place, there needs >> to be authorization for this work to occur. Which >> body/person is going to authorize this work? If the work was >> tied into IETF Last Call (or the Publication Requested state) >> this would be straightforward, but it is less so for >> documents at WG last call state, and we need to be careful >> that this doesn't slow things down by delaying WG last call. >> Also what happens if a document goes through multiple WG last >> calls as sometimes happens? This issue is to some extent >> covered by the remark in the first bullet in s5, which >> implies that we have to work some of this out. >> >> s3.1 and s3.3: Some of the wording here could be interpreted >> as covering technical review (notably document structure and >> proper use of keywords). I think that we need to make it >> clear that for IETF documents we want technically aware >> editorial services, as distinct from independent submissions >> where technical review will probably be wanted. To this end, >> having the Technical publisher recommend changes to document >> structure in post-approval editing is IMO a move too far, >> although it might be useful in pre-approval editing. At the >> moment the requirements only explicitly call out review of >> document structure in Req-POSTEDIT-1 (although it is >> mentioned in the discussion of both pre- and post-editing). >> I would definitely not want the technical publisher second >> guessing the authors on correct use of RFC2119 keywords - >> leave that to gen-art ;-) . >> >> > > A clarification can be added that technical review is not the role of the technical publisher (at least for the IETF stream. > I think that there could also be some difference in emphasis between pre- and post-approval review: Advice on document structure pre-approval might well be useful, but is too late once it is approved. IMO the wording as it stands reverses this bias. > >> s3.4: Should there be some requirement on ensuring that >> references will not become outdated? (s/are available/are >> and will continue to be available/?) >> > > Good point, most standards organizations have a requirement that references also be permanent. Otherwise a reference to a draft would be ok. > >> s3.7, Req-POSTCORR-3: I think 'unreasonable' is too vague. I >> take it what is intended is something like '... that a change >> requested by an author constitutes an unapproved technical >> change rather than a purely editorial improvement.' >> > > It was vague to give the publisher a bit of flexibility. It could also be when there are massive changes in Auth 48. > How about '... that a change requested by an author constitutes an unapproved technical change rather than a purely editorial improvement or represents a disproportionate editorial alteration at a late stage in the process.' >> s3.9: I think it would be wise to cover the capability of >> taking input in XML or other markup language as well. >> > > Do you mean xml2rfc? It was removed due to consensus at the last bof. > Not necessarily xml2rfc explicitly. I was trying to leave the door open for things other than plain old ascii. >> s3.13, Req-EXCEPTIONS-1: Should this be 'at the direction of >> the *IESG*' rather than 'IETF'? >> > > It should probably be something like "authorized representatives of the IETF" > > >> s3.16: Given that the copyright/ownership of the archives >> resides with ISOC, it is not clear that having the permanent >> archive provided by the technical publisher is the right >> answer. At the minimum, as part of the security >> arrangements, there should be a requirement to 'mirror' the >> archive at regular intervals in storage controlled by ISOC/IETF. >> >> > Is this something the RFC editor does now? Backing it up to ISOC/IETF seems like a new requirement. > > I guess I am not certain where the master copies of RFCs and the associated sources physically reside., but it looks as if they currently live on servers at ISI (ftp.rfc-editor.org maps to the same IP address as www.isi.edu). I believe that the IETF has generally been moving towards having all its information on machines that are controlled by the IETF/ISOC. We want to be certain that there would be no issue with control of the archives in the event that the IETF Technical Publisher contract was moved between providers. > >> s3.16, Req-INDEX-7: I seriously disagree with this >> requirement. The archive is a permanent archive. Once >> published documents should not be destroyed: '.. remove all >> traces of the document'. I think it should be replaced by a >> capability to withdraw a document but this should result in >> the document only remaining internally accessible. There are >> potential legal issues if the document is totally destroyed. >> >> > This seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't issue. This requirement was put in because some people were concerned that not being able to purge a document would expose the IETF (or ISOC) to legal action. > There is a difference between removing public accessibility and totally purging the document. I regret to say that this is a legal conundrum that I am not equipped to answer. My guess would be that you might need both (one to deal with internal requests and the other to deal with some hypothetical court requirement). I fear we may have to ask a lawyer. > >> s3.17: The three requirements here carefully allow for >> searching for a document, getting the meta-information and >> integrating the searches with other IETF search tools. >> Unfortunately they aren't explicit that you can retrieve the >> document itself!!! >> > > ok. "search" should probably be "search and retrieve" > > >> s3.19, Req-STATS-2; s3.21, Req-PUBHELP-2: I am noting this >> point here because it relates to how the reports/tutorials >> are delivered but it is a more general issue: At present >> representatives of the RFC Editor turn up IETF meetings in >> order to provide a help desk, deliver the report to the >> plenary, give tutorials and so on. This is a significant >> expense for the RFC Editor organization. Historically the RFC >> Editor had (and, for some of the people involved, may still >> have) other reasons for turning up! However we need to >> decide whether we are *requiring* the IETF Technical >> Publisher to show up in person at IETF meetings as this will >> be something which will have to be contractually specified. >> Reports could be delivered electronically without needing to >> have a rep in person at the meetings. Tutorials could be >> online or delivered by a volunteer proxy. >> > > I think providing a help desk should be a requirement. ISOC can always tell us if they aren't willing to pay for it. > > >> s4.1: It should be made clear that the times mentioned in >> these requirements refer to the time waiting for the >> technical publisher to complete its tasks. Both situations >> include (or may include) time waiting for feedback from >> authors which is outside the control of the technical >> publisher. Alternatively the times can be redefined to >> eliminate the dependency on the authors' efficiency >> (especially in the pre-publication - s/b pre-approval? - review). >> > > These requirements were deliberately left vague since it only represents a general wish by the IETF. Defining the metric more specifically was judged to be micro-managing the contractual terms. > Sorry - I just reread it and the the actual reqirement (Req-TIMEFRAME-1) actually covers the situation. >> s4.2, Req-THROUGHPUT-3: Are we imposing this requirement on >> the absolute value of the queue length or should it be >> measured relative to the input load? A constraint on the >> absolute value is probably only feasible if the contract with >> the technical publisher is on a time and materials basis or >> there are strict limits on the number of documents/page >> volume expected to be processed per unit time. >> > > True, a caveat similar to what is in section 4.1 requirements should probably be added. > > >> Editorial: >> ========== >> >> Global: >> Capitalization of Section Headings (ss 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.14, >> 3.16, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4) >> Consistent usage needed for hyphenation: post approval -> >> post-approval (s3, item7; s3.3; s3.7; s4.3; s5, bullet 2) >> post publication -> post-publication (s3.15; s5, bullet 6) >> non author -> non-author (s4, item 3; s4.3) >> >> Consistent capitalisation of 'IETF Technical publisher' (some >> instances of IETF technical publisher). ?Use 'IETF Technical >> Publisher' throughout? >> >> 4 instances where 'Technical editor' is used in place of >> 'Technical publisher' (s2, para 4; s3, para 2; s3.3, >> REQ-postedit-3/4) - I don't think this is deliberate. >> >> s1, para 1: s/An important output of the IETF, then, is >> published technical specifications./Therefore an important >> output of the IETF is published technical specifications./ >> >> s2: As others have mentioned, a better term than 'IETF >> family' is desirable. One possibility: s/by the IETF >> family/from within the IETF umbrella/ >> >> s2.1: The figure contains a large number of unexpanded >> acronyms. A terminology section would help (including RFC!). >> >> s3: The list labels run into the list item texts for higher numbers. >> >> s3.3: Unexpanded acronym: MIB >> >> s3.4, para 1: s/included/including/ >> >> s3.5: Unexpanded acronyms: (MIB), ABNF, XML, ASN.1 >> >> s3.6: s/populate protocol parameters/populate assigned >> numerical values of protocol parameters/ >> >> s3.6, discussion: s/publication./publication process./ >> >> s3.7: Add reference to s3.13 (exception handling) at end of >> Task description. >> >> s3.7, Req-POSTCORR-1: s/pre publication/pre-publication/ >> >> s3.7, Req-POSTCORR-4: The wording of this section seems to be >> somewhat convoluted. How about: >> The IETF Technical publisher should ensure that any >> post-publication >> changes to a specification are applied to the source >> documents used >> to create the published specification. >> >> s3.8, Discussion: 'these numbers' - suggest 'allocates RFC >> and other numbers (the current IETF stable identifiers) when >> the document is near...' >> >> s3.9: The various abbreviations for document formats need to >> be defined and used consistently. >> >> s3.11: The Task Description and Discussion refer to 'status >> information' whereas the Req-STATUSTRK-1/2 refer to 'state >> information'. This should be consistent. >> >> s4.1, Req-TIMEFRAMES-2: s/pre-publication/pre-approval/? >> >> s4.3: s/%/percentage/, s/percent/percentage/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 09:29:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjFuM-0005DJ-0F; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:29:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizHr-0002lE-QZ; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:44:55 -0400 Received: from fep14-1.kolumbus.fi ([193.229.5.114] helo=fep14-app.kolumbus.fi) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FizHq-0002u6-Ax; Wed, 24 May 2006 15:44:55 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.72] (really [84.231.138.101]) by fep14-app.kolumbus.fi with ESMTP id <20060524194441.JJFO16174.fep14-app.kolumbus.fi@[192.168.1.72]>; Wed, 24 May 2006 22:44:41 +0300 From: "John Loughney" To: Andy Bierman Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 22:42:19 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: i-default Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:29:45 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, David Harrington , 'Sam Hartman' , ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: John Loughney List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Andy, For what it's worth, I agree with you. Having a single editor simplifies = many things, but having a authors list allows full credit to all = parties. John=20 - original message - Subject: Re: RFC Author Count and IPR From: Andy Bierman Date: 05/24/2006 7:19 pm David Harrington wrote: > If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the > first page of the document.=20 >=20 > It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the > document in an contributors section. It's not just the first page. It also affects the reference citation used in the RFC Index and all other RFCs. I believe the 5 author rule was used as justification to remove most of the original SNMPv2 authors from the author list and all further reference citations, when the RFC 1901-1909 series was advanced. I don't really understand what purpose this serves. >=20 > I also have concerns about who should be listed as an "author" and > have copyrights when a work is developed by a WG. The demand to do > things with IETF documents beyond IETF standards work seems to be > growing, so it will be an increasingly difficult problem if we do = not > identify all the people who contributed significant portions of a > document (where significant is of course open to debate). There is a problem with companies piling on the authors for I-D proposals to make it look like lots of people worked really hard on it and all agree on the contents. (This is hardly ever the case.) Then when you go to WG draft, there are already 5 or 7 names as authors, and the WG wants to add more. I think then, you have to pick a real Editor (responsible for all edits all the way through AUTH48) and just list that person as Editor on the first page and citations, and put everybody in the Authors section in the back. IMO, this is different than removing the author(s) of a previous version of an RFC. I object to that practice. >=20 > dbh Andy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 09:42:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjG6Y-0004f5-3N; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:42:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjG6W-0004cf-Ce; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:42:20 -0400 Received: from mserv4.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.54] helo=smtp.uoregon.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjG6V-0002Jv-1r; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:42:20 -0400 Received: from geoduck.uoregon.edu (geoduck.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.113]) by smtp.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4PDg6pB031028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 May 2006 06:42:06 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" X-X-Sender: llynch@geoduck.uoregon.edu To: Harald Alvestrand Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR In-Reply-To: <44756EDF.1020408@alvestrand.no> Message-ID: References: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> <44756EDF.1020408@alvestrand.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1482/Thu May 25 05:28:30 2006 on mserv4 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, Bob Braden , ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 25 May 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Lucy E. Lynch wrote: >> Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship >> between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the >> given document's Intellectual Property? > I can answer that one... > > No. Thank you! -- Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 11:13:36 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHWo-00040k-8y; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:13:34 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHWn-0003y0-MW for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:13:33 -0400 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHWm-0001TM-7A for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:13:33 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1FjHWl-000PJn-Jm; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:13:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:13:30 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Techspec] When to do pre-edit Message-ID: <3CFB3870B1123FD216C073B6@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.4 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org --On Wednesday, 24 May, 2006 11:15 -0700 Paul Hoffman wrote: > In section 3.1: > o Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should > perform an > editorial review of documents before WG last call and > provide > feedback to the authors to improve quality of the > documents. This > review should strive to maintain consistency in > appearance with > previously published documents. > This requirement might be modified to read "...documents > before or during WG last call...", because some WG chairs may > not know when a document is ready for WG last call until the > last minute, and making them wait for the WG last call could > be inappropriate. The technical publisher should help WG > chairs understand that doing this review during WG last call > could result in many more changes than they expected, but > still let the WG chairs make the decision when to have the > review done. It is also worth pointing out that we do not require WG Last Calls and that this stage does not exist for individual submissions of standards track documents. Modulo Paul's comments (with which I agree) and the concern below, I think this suggestion is generally a good one. But the text needs to be adjusted to be consistent with the real variability permitted by our present approval processes. The concern is that, at any given resource level, there will be only so many resources to go around. There has been an active concern, partially reflected in the POSTEDIT materials, that we shorten the gap between approval and final publication as much as possible. That requirement is going to put the Technical Publisher into a position in which, on any given day, a choice will need to be made between having a person-resource working on getting approved documents out or having that person engaged in a pre-approval process that, in the worst case, may involve administering individualized short courses in English Composition. The latter process may well be worthwhile, but is often immensely time-consuming. I also note that some documents have been put through WG last call, which has turned up objections leading to significant modifications and another WG last call. Sometimes that cycle has been repeated. I don't understand from the above when we would expect the Technical Publisher to intervene and how many times. To the extent to which this document is expected to be transformed into RFI, RFP, and/or contractual language, sections like the above should be transformed from "wish list" into things we understand how to implement in terms of priorities and resources. In addition, I suggest that an individual or organization could be skilled and well-equipped to do the editing and publication part of the job without having the skills or inclination to "provide feedback" that amounts to training in English Composition and clarity of presentation. If we insist that the Technical Publisher entity contain both sets of skills, we may be unreasonably overconstraining the set of possible applicants. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to keep this task, but figure out a way to accomplish it that is not part of the Technical Publisher role and hence does not get into the critical path of getting documents published post-approval. The text, as written, certainly does not permit that. john _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 12:19:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIYH-0006V0-Ab; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:19:09 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIYG-0006Up-DU; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:19:08 -0400 Received: from mserv4.uoregon.edu ([128.223.142.54] helo=smtp.uoregon.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIYF-0006dU-1k; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:19:08 -0400 Received: from geoduck.uoregon.edu (geoduck.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.113]) by smtp.uoregon.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4PGJ1uL023685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 May 2006 09:19:01 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:19:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucy E. Lynch" X-X-Sender: llynch@geoduck.uoregon.edu To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR In-Reply-To: <20060525153544.GC21255@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: References: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> <44756EDF.1020408@alvestrand.no> <20060525153544.GC21255@vacation.karoshi.com.> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1484/Thu May 25 08:19:23 2006 on mserv4 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, Bob Braden , ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 25 May 2006, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:42:06AM -0700, Lucy E. Lynch wrote: >> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> >>> Lucy E. Lynch wrote: >>>> Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship >>>> between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the >>>> given document's Intellectual Property? >>> I can answer that one... >>> >>> No. >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services > > not knowing Harolds legal background or current standing w/ > the ABA, (or EU equivalent) I think that Bob's recommendation > on getting actual legal advice on your question puts you and > the organziation represented (IETF) on much better grounding > than a simple; "I can answer that... no" on an email list. > > just my (uninformed) opinion. Bill - Understood, as I say, I'm just trying to get a handle the range of community opinion(s) and the scope of the problem. This issue cuts across TechSpec, the IPR WG, the RFC-Editor's office, and the IETF Trust (as well as individual authors etc.). Everyone sees this slightly differently. Before we ask for advise, I'd like to understand the problem set. > --bill > -- Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 12:28:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIh2-0003fp-9x; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:28:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIh0-0003Yf-SA for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:28:10 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHr4-0003jJ-Hz for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:34:30 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHeX-0001Mc-6J for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:21:34 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4PFLOtF007433; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:21:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE2636@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE2636@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:57:59 -0700 To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" , techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Subject: RE: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 11:32 PM -0500 5/24/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > > In section 4.1: >> o Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The consensus of the IETF community is that >> the time required for a pre-publication review should >> be under 10 >> days. The actual performance targets and metrics are >> expected to >> be determined as part of the contract negotiation process. >> The term "pre-publication review" is not defined anywhere in the >> document, and it probably should, given this consensus statement. > >It should probably refer to section 3.1. That sounds fine. You might also want to change "pre-publication review" to "Pre-approval review or editing" to match the heading of 3.1. "Pre-publication review" sounds like what is done just before the RFC is emitted. > > Section 5 talks about "potential issues" for the IETF. Two bullet >> items do not match the earlier part of the document. >> >> o Pre- vs Post-Approval Editing: If emphasis switches from post- >> approval editing to pre-approval editing, then IETF >> processes must >> be adapted to make use of this service. The processes >> for post- >> approval editing can also be streamlined. >> Section 3.1 makes a requirement that the emphasis must switch. So, >> "If" should probably be "When". > >I'm not sure that 3.1 requires that the emphasis must switch to >pre-approval reviews. We are putting a requirement that the >publisher support pre-approval reviews, but we have not yet decided >if the IETF will really make use of it. o Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide feedback to the authors to improve quality of the documents. This review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with previously published documents. The phrase "should perform" is quite different than "should support". It seems that the consensus was that this should be done, so "should perform" is correct. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 12:36:41 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIpF-0000v9-6A; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:36:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIpD-0000pD-UI; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:36:39 -0400 Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjIpC-00088r-Fy; Thu, 25 May 2006 12:36:39 -0400 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k4PGZfR04500; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:35:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id JAA15044; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:35:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200605251635.JAA15044@gra.isi.edu> To: todd.glassey@att.net Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: braden@ISI.EDU, ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Todd Glassey wrote: *> *> This is a very bad thing, since each of those authors has legal control over *> their portions of the work or derivatives of their contribution within the *> work itself. I.e. they are all legal signatories to any conveyance of *> copyrights or derivative use rights including implementaiton rights. *> This is all very puzzling. Suppose that document editor X in a WG receives a paragraph that has been crafted by another WG member Y. Also, suppose that in fitting the paragraph into the document, X changes the text a bit (or a lot). Now, does Y retain "legal control" (presumably you mean copyright) over the paragraph as it finally appears in the finished document? Bob Braden _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 13:14:49 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJQ8-0005U4-PK; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:14:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJQ8-0005Tz-4u for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:14:48 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHr4-0003jJ-Dz for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:34:30 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHeX-0001Mb-6N for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:21:36 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4PFLOtH007433; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:21:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE2638@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE2638@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 08:00:40 -0700 To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" , techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Subject: RE: [Techspec] Validation of formal languages Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 11:38 PM -0500 5/24/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > > This section might also add a requirement that the IETF technical >> publisher should not change any examples (changing words, >> reformatting with line breaks, and so on) without explicitly alerting >> the document authors. Some formal languages are quite sensitive to >> byte counts and line breaks. > >In general, I think the publisher should work with the authors for >any changes required to formal language sections. Right. That is obvious enough to be a requirement, it seems. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 13:22:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJXG-00008Y-MD; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:22:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJXF-00008T-0y for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:22:09 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHr4-0003jJ-G0 for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:34:30 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHeX-0001Ma-6G for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:21:34 -0400 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k4PFLOtJ007433; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:21:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE263B@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802DE263B@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 08:21:36 -0700 To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" , techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Subject: RE: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 11:41 PM -0500 5/24/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: >All the requirements use the "should" language. It is hard to >actually mandate anything since what the publisher will do is >ultimately determined by the contract. Some of the requirements still say "must". It's fine to demote them, but if you don't, this one should be promoted to "must". o Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the appropriate technical representatives as defined in the IETF processes. o Req-INDEX-3 - Meta information associated with a published document must be stored and updated as its status changes. o Req-INDEX-4 - The archive must be sufficiently secure to prevent the modification of published documents by external parties. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 19:15:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjP3U-00067M-Th; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJUO-0007Ob-JN; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJUN-0003dO-Al; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from gw (193.san-jose-06-08rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.194.193]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with SMTP id <200605251719041130074fuke>; Thu, 25 May 2006 17:19:09 +0000 Message-ID: <01eb01c6801f$5a851350$010aa8c0@gw> From: "todd glassey" To: "Bob Braden" , References: <200605251635.JAA15044@gra.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:17:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:46 -0400 Cc: braden@ISI.EDU, ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Braden" To: Cc: ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR > > > Todd Glassey wrote: > > *> > *> This is a very bad thing, since each of those authors has legal control over > *> their portions of the work or derivatives of their contribution within the > *> work itself. I.e. they are all legal signatories to any conveyance of > *> copyrights or derivative use rights including implementaiton rights. > *> > > This is all very puzzling. yeah I know - hey I didnt get into the thick of IP Law until I had to sue someone over the violation of a patent, and since I am not a lawyer I legally cannot render an opinion other than my personal one. So that disclaimer taken care of... lets walk these logic-statements out and see where they lead... > Suppose that document editor X in a WG Is the DE (Document Editor) an employee or party of the WG framework or a member of it, or both, and what role would they be acting as in this example. > receives a paragraph that has been crafted by another WG member Y. "Crafted" means what? that the party was the original creator of that IP or that they editied the IP as a DE for instance. The reasons for asking are relative to who would own the CR's... My take would be that if the person in WG "Y" is the creator of the IP, and its referenced in another "Standards Initiative" somewhere that this likely would trigger the RESEARCH EXEMPTION in the US Copyright Act, and so no release would be necessary. Further with the way the releases are now, once the IP is submitted to the IETF, anyone else in any other WG can use it or its derivatives as well within the ISOC or IETF processes without any notice as far as I can tell. We might want to change that as well to provide traceability back to the originating source of the IP. Assume now that one of the WG's is in OASIS or ITU or ANSI for instance. How does the OASIS CR get modified by a source IP License in the Boilerplate that says "Any and all uses" which seems like it would violate OASIS's RC for instance. > Also, suppose that in fitting the paragraph into the document, X > changes the text a bit (or a lot). Now, does Y retain "legal > control" (presumably you mean copyright) over the paragraph as > it finally appears in the finished document? I think that would depend on the conveyance model to the IETF. My understanding in the case of the TRUST is that the TRUST would own everything.... so "No" - but generally I would think that the answer here is that core rights to the underlying IP are with Owner Y and the derivative words and the rights to them belong to the author of X but the Author of X does not own the rights to Y so they cannot convey anything but the rights to their words to whoever they are selling, licensing or giving them to. > > Bob Braden Bob - Take for a closing example, the two ISI Powertpoint Templates. These are both copyrighted documents which are templates for content to be added into, amazingly just like the IETF's word Document Templates, or the "Instructions as to what an ID must contain and be conformant to" in the controlling IPR works, what I refer to as the unheavenly twins - meaning BCP78 and 79 et Al. The derivative work is the users' content encased and integrated with the template and the processes for using the template which are documented in ancillary or adjunct documents. So let me ask you, who owns the original content and the derivatve here? How about after one creates the presentation, who owns the template after that? Also what follow-on rights to that template does that Author have??? The answer should be none. If you have questions about that I suggest that ISI call the University's Legal Office - they will have answers immediatly for the control of the ISI templates. Apply those same process policies to the IETF and we are clean. Todd Glassey _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 19:15:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjP3U-00067A-Qg; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHsZ-0007jb-Ao; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:36:03 -0400 Received: from vacation.karoshi.com ([198.32.6.68] helo=karoshi.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHsX-0003tp-V7; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:36:03 -0400 Received: from karoshi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k4PFZkIV021385; Thu, 25 May 2006 15:35:46 GMT Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id k4PFZiKX021384; Thu, 25 May 2006 15:35:44 GMT Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:35:44 +0000 From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com To: "Lucy E. Lynch" Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR Message-ID: <20060525153544.GC21255@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> <44756EDF.1020408@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:46 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, Bob Braden , ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:42:06AM -0700, Lucy E. Lynch wrote: > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > >Lucy E. Lynch wrote: > >>Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship > >>between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the > >>given document's Intellectual Property? > >I can answer that one... > > > >No. > > > Thank you! > > Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services not knowing Harolds legal background or current standing w/ the ABA, (or EU equivalent) I think that Bob's recommendation on getting actual legal advice on your question puts you and the organziation represented (IETF) on much better grounding than a simple; "I can answer that... no" on an email list. just my (uninformed) opinion. --bill _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 19:15:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjP3U-00067M-Th; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJUO-0007Ob-JN; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjJUN-0003dO-Al; Thu, 25 May 2006 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from gw (193.san-jose-06-08rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.194.193]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with SMTP id <200605251719041130074fuke>; Thu, 25 May 2006 17:19:09 +0000 Message-ID: <01eb01c6801f$5a851350$010aa8c0@gw> From: "todd glassey" To: "Bob Braden" , References: <200605251635.JAA15044@gra.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:17:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:46 -0400 Cc: braden@ISI.EDU, ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Braden" To: Cc: ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR > > > Todd Glassey wrote: > > *> > *> This is a very bad thing, since each of those authors has legal control over > *> their portions of the work or derivatives of their contribution within the > *> work itself. I.e. they are all legal signatories to any conveyance of > *> copyrights or derivative use rights including implementaiton rights. > *> > > This is all very puzzling. yeah I know - hey I didnt get into the thick of IP Law until I had to sue someone over the violation of a patent, and since I am not a lawyer I legally cannot render an opinion other than my personal one. So that disclaimer taken care of... lets walk these logic-statements out and see where they lead... > Suppose that document editor X in a WG Is the DE (Document Editor) an employee or party of the WG framework or a member of it, or both, and what role would they be acting as in this example. > receives a paragraph that has been crafted by another WG member Y. "Crafted" means what? that the party was the original creator of that IP or that they editied the IP as a DE for instance. The reasons for asking are relative to who would own the CR's... My take would be that if the person in WG "Y" is the creator of the IP, and its referenced in another "Standards Initiative" somewhere that this likely would trigger the RESEARCH EXEMPTION in the US Copyright Act, and so no release would be necessary. Further with the way the releases are now, once the IP is submitted to the IETF, anyone else in any other WG can use it or its derivatives as well within the ISOC or IETF processes without any notice as far as I can tell. We might want to change that as well to provide traceability back to the originating source of the IP. Assume now that one of the WG's is in OASIS or ITU or ANSI for instance. How does the OASIS CR get modified by a source IP License in the Boilerplate that says "Any and all uses" which seems like it would violate OASIS's RC for instance. > Also, suppose that in fitting the paragraph into the document, X > changes the text a bit (or a lot). Now, does Y retain "legal > control" (presumably you mean copyright) over the paragraph as > it finally appears in the finished document? I think that would depend on the conveyance model to the IETF. My understanding in the case of the TRUST is that the TRUST would own everything.... so "No" - but generally I would think that the answer here is that core rights to the underlying IP are with Owner Y and the derivative words and the rights to them belong to the author of X but the Author of X does not own the rights to Y so they cannot convey anything but the rights to their words to whoever they are selling, licensing or giving them to. > > Bob Braden Bob - Take for a closing example, the two ISI Powertpoint Templates. These are both copyrighted documents which are templates for content to be added into, amazingly just like the IETF's word Document Templates, or the "Instructions as to what an ID must contain and be conformant to" in the controlling IPR works, what I refer to as the unheavenly twins - meaning BCP78 and 79 et Al. The derivative work is the users' content encased and integrated with the template and the processes for using the template which are documented in ancillary or adjunct documents. So let me ask you, who owns the original content and the derivatve here? How about after one creates the presentation, who owns the template after that? Also what follow-on rights to that template does that Author have??? The answer should be none. If you have questions about that I suggest that ISI call the University's Legal Office - they will have answers immediatly for the control of the ISI templates. Apply those same process policies to the IETF and we are clean. Todd Glassey _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 19:15:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjP3U-00067A-Qg; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHsZ-0007jb-Ao; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:36:03 -0400 Received: from vacation.karoshi.com ([198.32.6.68] helo=karoshi.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjHsX-0003tp-V7; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:36:03 -0400 Received: from karoshi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k4PFZkIV021385; Thu, 25 May 2006 15:35:46 GMT Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id k4PFZiKX021384; Thu, 25 May 2006 15:35:44 GMT Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:35:44 +0000 From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com To: "Lucy E. Lynch" Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR Message-ID: <20060525153544.GC21255@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu> <44756EDF.1020408@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:46 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, Bob Braden , ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 06:42:06AM -0700, Lucy E. Lynch wrote: > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > >Lucy E. Lynch wrote: > >>Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship > >>between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the > >>given document's Intellectual Property? > >I can answer that one... > > > >No. > > > Thank you! > > Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services not knowing Harolds legal background or current standing w/ the ABA, (or EU equivalent) I think that Bob's recommendation on getting actual legal advice on your question puts you and the organziation represented (IETF) on much better grounding than a simple; "I can answer that... no" on an email list. just my (uninformed) opinion. --bill _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 19:15:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjP3U-00066y-Nl; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjGfW-0000Bm-06; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:18:30 -0400 Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.115]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjGfU-00059u-NO; Thu, 25 May 2006 10:18:29 -0400 Received: from gw (151.san-jose-04-05rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.193.151]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <20060525141825111004agdie>; Thu, 25 May 2006 14:18:27 +0000 Message-ID: <011401c68006$1bb7fe80$010aa8c0@gw> From: "todd glassey" To: "Lucy E. Lynch" , "Harald Alvestrand" References: <200605242059.NAA14811@gra.isi.edu><44756EDF.1020408@alvestrand.no> Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:18:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:15:46 -0400 Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, Bob Braden , ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org L2, The IETF's policy here has a couple of problems I think - and that is that it limits the number of parties that can claim control over a document and in doing so limits the representation of legal ownership or rights to the filing. This is a very bad thing, since each of those authors has legal control over their portions of the work or derivatives of their contribution within the work itself. I.e. they are all legal signatories to any conveyance of copyrights or derivative use rights including implementaiton rights. It also seems to limit who can converse with the Secretariat or WG in regard to the management of any particular Document's Initiative which may prevent legitimate IP owners from interacting with the IETF's processes. Perhaps we need to apply the same standards to these that are applied to US Patents, and BTW did you know that a person licensing someone to use a patent can revoke that license for cause 20 years later... that is an important statement since it means that anything can be pulled out from under anyone these days. The use of the IP for reprinting is Copyright controlled - but the implementation of actual code or a 'system from the description' is more specific to patent protection and should be dealt with as such since it is not 'republication' but commercial/private use of the described IP that is being dealt with. The point is that the IP Control and Transfer model is to complex and needs to be made simpler if the Trust idea is to work at all IMHO. For instance, you have a piece of IP that is patented and there are four listed Inventor's - that has very specific rights attached to it and it generally similar if not the same for Author's of copyrighted works. And for this example say one of those Four Inventor's is dissatisfied with a buy-out or other matter and decides to rescind the transfer of the IP... there are of course legal issues and processes to be addressed, but it does happen. The point is that in any IP licensing model its critical to get continuing agreement as to the intent and willingness of the AUTHORS/INVENTORS to continue participating and that means that there needs to be an ongoing process for getting that formal release. Say a RFC for instance was derived from a document that had four authors and one of them decided to leave the Vetting Team that submitted the document (notice also I snuck a new Governance term in - "Vetting Team")... Now when each revision to that I-D that is done the same four people would have to agree to the ongoing license to use, which the one who left can clearly say no to... What does this cause? nothing inside the IETF since its use rights are protected by the Research Exemptions but anyone else? could be messy. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucy E. Lynch" To: "Harald Alvestrand" Cc: ; "Bob Braden" ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [Techspec] RFC Author Count and IPR > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > > Lucy E. Lynch wrote: > >> Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship > >> between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the > >> given document's Intellectual Property? > > I can answer that one... > > > > No. > > > Thank you! > > -- > Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services > Computing Center University of Oregon > llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 > > _______________________________________________ > Ipr-wg mailing list > Ipr-wg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 20:44:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQR3-0003Sr-7r; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:44:13 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQR2-0003Sm-Dc for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:44:12 -0400 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQR1-0002aa-3x for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:44:12 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4Q0tTjH022680; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:55:29 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:44:10 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802E17C96@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:44:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thanks for catching these errors. I'll change the musts to should. Consistency is hard. Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:22 AM > To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS); techspec@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Techspec] Post-edit tracking > > > At 11:41 PM -0500 5/24/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > >All the requirements use the "should" language. It is hard to > >actually mandate anything since what the publisher will do is > >ultimately determined by the contract. > > Some of the requirements still say "must". It's fine to demote them, > but if you don't, this one should be promoted to "must". > > o Req-POSTEDIT-2 - All changes made to post-approval documents > should be tracked and the changes must be signed off on by the > appropriate technical representatives as defined in the IETF > processes. > > o Req-INDEX-3 - Meta information associated with a published > document must be stored and updated as its status changes. > > o Req-INDEX-4 - The archive must be sufficiently secure > to prevent > the modification of published documents by external parties. > > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 25 20:48:48 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQVR-0007VE-DE; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:48:45 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQVQ-0007V8-5h for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:48:44 -0400 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjQVO-00035B-SO for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:48:44 -0400 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4Q101An023083; Thu, 25 May 2006 20:00:01 -0500 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003802E17C9A@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Editorial notes on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:48:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Paul Hoffman wrote > o Req-PREEDIT-1: The IETF technical publisher should perform an > editorial review of documents before WG last call and provide > feedback to the authors to improve quality of the > documents. This > review should strive to maintain consistency in appearance with > previously published documents. > The phrase "should perform" is quite different than "should support". > It seems that the consensus was that this should be done, so "should > perform" is correct. I agree, the current wording is too strong. Even if IETF decides to go down the pre-approval review route, it is not clear what documents you would use it on. It is certainly a stretch to assume all WG docs would be pre-approved. It is also unclear that it is only WG docs that could have pre-approval review. I will change the wording to indicate that is it something the technical publisher should do when requested by appropriate technical representatives. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 29 11:20:00 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkjX7-0001iU-Nt; Mon, 29 May 2006 11:19:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkKcu-0004lg-0m for techspec@ietf.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 08:44:12 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkJkn-0007VL-TV for techspec@ietf.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 07:48:17 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkJco-0006zX-1K for techspec@ietf.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 07:40:05 -0400 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i7so701567wra for ; Sun, 28 May 2006 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qbz97HeAGRNBtybQ7f9ek2Y6Smo5nhC9Sbe6KVXgHGXsce6ep+MAW4b67oALJ6omxVDz4Yjb2pMbOJeaz+VSi5Zdmbotq22JIVpemu01t+qm+RiJuYV2Lq9GTjIkw1WbHZ+N4xhiv99kapvu9kqzwfSuctgzbZfobkIRryGXP3E= Received: by 10.65.145.15 with SMTP id x15mr473604qbn; Sun, 28 May 2006 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.185.10 with HTTP; Sun, 28 May 2006 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 05:39:59 -0600 From: "Bill Fenner" To: "Bob Braden" In-Reply-To: <200605241916.MAA14726@gra.isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200605241916.MAA14726@gra.isi.edu> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:19:53 -0400 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu, ipr-wg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On 5/24/06, Bob Braden wrote: > In case anyone is unsure, the actual policy being followed by > the RFC Editor will be found at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist Bob, How does this policy relate to the one found at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.auth2 The "Author Overload" policy says that 'contact addresses may also be included in the Contributors section for those contributors whose knowledge makes them useful future contacts for information about the RFC'; the "Authors vs. Contributors" policy says 'can/should the Contributors section include contact information? With the clarification above, it should be clear that the answer will be: "No, contact information should be in the Contact Information section."' Of course, that "will be" is predicated on the proposed renaming of "Authors' Addresses" to "Contact Information"; perhaps since that hasn't happened it can be assumed that the statement in the "Author Overload" policy is the one currently in force, but I find it a little confusing to have these apparently-contradictory statements on the same page. Thanks, Bill _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec