Subject: [Netconf] FW: RFC 5378 and Draft Submissions

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:42:31 +0100

Document authors:
Please be aware of the discussion on RFC 5378 and its impact 
on Draft Submissions (see below and attachments).

Cheers,
Mehmet

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of ext Russ Housley
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review
andcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

WG Chairs:

Please make sure that your WG, and especially your document authors, 
are aware of this situation.  Please follow the discussion on the 
IETF Discussion list, and keep the WG informed about the way forward 
as it develops.

Thanks,
   Russ

>From: "Ed Juskevicius" <[email-masked]>
>To: "'IETF Discussion'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
>         <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
>         <[email-masked]>
>Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:43:50 -0500
>Cc: 'Trustees' <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review
and
>         comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
>
>The purpose of this message is twofold:
>
>1) To summarize the issues that some members of our community
>    have experienced since the publication of RFC 5378 in November
2008,
>    and
>2) To invite community review and discussion on a potential work-around
>    being considered by the IETF Trustees.
>
>Some I-D authors are having difficulty implementing RFC 5378.  An
>example of the difficulty is as follows:
>
>   - an author wants to include pre-5378 content in a new submission
>     or contribution to the IETF, but
>   - s/he is not certain that all of the author(s) of the earlier
>     material have agreed to license it to the IETF Trust according
>     to RFC 5378.
>
>If an I-D author includes pre-5378 material in a new document, then
s/he
>must represent or warrant that all of the authors who created the
>pre-5378 material have granted rights for that material to the IETF
Trust.
>If s/he cannot make this assertion, then s/he has a problem.
>
>This situation has halted the progression of some Internet-Drafts and
>interrupted the publication of some RFCs.  The Trustees of the IETF
Trust
>are investigating ways to implement a temporary work-around so that
IETF
>work can continue to progress.  A permanent solution to this "pre-5378
>problem" may require an update to RFC 5378, for example new work by the
>community to create a 5378-bis document.
>
>The remainder of this message provides an outline of the temporary
work-
>around being considered by the Trustees.
>
>RFC 5378 sections 1.j and 5.3.c provide the IETF Trust with the
>authority to develop legend text for authors to use in situations where
>they wish to limit the granting of rights to modify and prepare
>derivatives of the documents they submit.  The Trustees used this
>authority in 2008 to develop and adopt the current "Legal Provisions
>Relating to IETF Documents" which are posted at:
>http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.
>
>The Trustees are now considering the creation of optional new legend
text
>which could be used by authors experiencing the "pre-5378 problem".
>
>The new legend text, if implemented, would do the following:
>
>   a. Provide Authors and Contributors with a way to identify (to the
>      IETF Trust) that their contributions contain material from
pre-5378
>      documents for which RFC 5378 rights to modify the material
outside
>      the IETF standards process may not have been granted, and
>
>   b. Provide the IETF Trust and the community with a clear indication
>      of every document containing pre-5378 content and having the
>      "pre-5378 problem".
>
>So, how could the creation and use of some new legend text help people
>work-around the pre-5378 problem?
>
>The proposed answer is as follows:
>
>   1. Anyone having a contribution with the "pre-5378" problem should
add
>      new legend text to the contribution, to clearly flag that it
includes
>      pre-5378 material for which all of the rights needed under RFC
5378
>      may not have been granted, and
>
>   2. The IETF Trust will consider authors and contributors (with the
>      pre-5378 problem) to have met their RFC 5378 obligations if the
>      new legend text appears on their documents, and
>
>   3. Authors and contributors should only resort to adding the new
>      legend text to their documents (per #1) if they cannot develop
>      certainty that all of the author(s) of pre-5378 material in
>      their documents have agreed to license the pre-5378 content to
>      the IETF Trust according to RFC 5378.
>
>The proposed wording for the new legend text is now available for your
>review and comments in section 6.c.iii of a draft revision to the
>IETF Trust's "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" located at
>http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html.
>
>Please note that the above document also contains new text in section
5.c
>dealing with "License Limitations".
>
>If your review and feedback on this proposed work-around is positive,
>then the new text may be adopted by the Trustees in early February
2009,
>and then be published as an official revision to the Legal Provisions
>document.  If so adopted, Internet-Drafts with pre-5378 material may
>advance within the Internet standards process and get published as RFCs
>where otherwise qualified to do so.  Unless covered by sections 6.c.i
or
>6.c.ii, authors of documents in which there is no pre-5378
>material must provide a RFC 5378 license with no limitation on
>modifications outside the IETF standards process.
>
>The IETF Trust will not grant the right to modify or prepare derivative
>works of any specific RFC or other IETF Contribution outside the IETF
>standards process until RFC 5378 rights pertaining to that document
have
>been obtained from all authors and after compliance by the IETF Trust
>with RFC 5377.  The Trustees will establish one or more mechanisms by
>which authors of pre-5378 documents may grant RFC 5378 rights.
>
>The Trustees hereby invite your review, comments and suggestions on
this
>proposed work-around to the "pre-5378 problem".  The period for this
review
>is 30 days.  Microsoft WORD and PDF versions of the proposed revisions
are
>attached to this message.  Copies are also available on the IETF Trust
>website under the heading "DRAFT Policy and Procedures Being Developed"
at:
>http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
>
>All feedback submitted before the end of February 7th will be
considered by
>the Trustees.  A decision on whether to move forward with this proposal
will
>be made and communicated to you before the end of February 15th.
>
>Please give this your attention.
>
>Regards and Happy New Year !
>
>Ed Juskevicius, on behalf of the IETF Trustees
>[email-masked]

Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
From: "ext Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:02:25 +0100

Sorry that I was unclear.  It is important that all contributors know 
the terms under which contributions are made.  So, I mean the 
requirements in RFC 5378 and the problems that some people have had with them.

If people want to engage in the discussion of the work-around, please 
direct them to the thread on the IETF Discussion mail list.  I think 
that a separate discussion in each working group would be counterproductive.

Russ

At 11:27 AM 1/14/2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>Russ,
>
>By "this situation", do you mean the requirements in 5378 (current 
>BCP), or the trustee's search for a work-around?
>
>I'm asking so that I don't send multiple messages to my working group...
>
>Thanks,
>
>Spencer
>
>
>>WG Chairs:
>>
>>Please make sure that your WG, and especially your document 
>>authors, are aware of this situation.  Please follow the discussion 
>>on the IETF Discussion list, and keep the WG informed about the way 
>>forward as it develops.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>   Russ
>
>

Subject: Fwd: RFC 5378 and Draft From [email-masked] Thu Jan 15 08:42:52 2009
From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:42:31 +0100
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Document authors:
Please be aware of the discussion on RFC 5378 and its impact 
on Draft Submissions (see below and attachments).

Cheers,
Mehmet

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of ext Russ Housley
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review
andcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

WG Chairs:

Please make sure that your WG, and especially your document authors, 
are aware of this situation.  Please follow the discussion on the 
IETF Discussion list, and keep the WG informed about the way forward 
as it develops.

Thanks,
   Russ

>From: "Ed Juskevicius" <[email-masked]>
>To: "'IETF DiscSubmissions
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:03:42 +0100
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: RFC 5378 and Draft Submissions
Thread-Index: Acl2zqcXsvHexWU2TSibsFRswrshQw=
References: <[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>,<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>,<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
From: "ext Eric Rescorla" <[email-masked]>
Sender: <[email-masked]>
To: "Working Group Chairs" <[email-masked]>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Subject: RFC 5378 and Draft Submissions
To: [email-masked]

IETF Chair Russ Housley has asked WG chairs to apprise their WGs of
the following information.

If you've been following the IETF mailing list, you may be aware of
the ongoing discussion about the impact of RFC 5378 on revised draft
submissions. Briefly, RFC 5378 requires Contributors to grant a more
expansive set of rights than were granted by RFC 3978, and 4748. If
you are submitting a document which contains text contributed by
others prior to the publication of RFC 5378 you may need to obtain
additional rights from the
copyright holders of that text in order to contribute under the 5378
terms.

The IESG and the IETF Trustees are working to resolve those issues
(see
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Background-to-Draft-Update-to-IETF-Trust-Legal-Provisions.txt).
However,
at present I would advise care prior to submitting any draft
which contains material derived from an RFC, draft, or mailing
list message published prior to November 10, 2008.
Speaking personally, I have chosen not to submit new versions
of most of my drafts until matters are resolved.

Please take any general discussion of RFC 5378 to [email-masked]

-Ekr
[As WG Chair]
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf