Hi, In transferring responsibility for the Bridge MIBs to IEEE 802, we learned that the IETF has certain copyrights to documents that have been submitted to the IETF for IETF purposes. All other rights remain with the authors, and the IEEE had to contact the authors to get permission to do non-IETF things with the documents. The IETF has no authority to transfer the authors' rights to other organizations/persons for non-IETF purposes.
So it is not important for IETF purposes for the IETF to define requirements about listing authors and contributors to IETF documents. It may be important to the authors and contributors and to others who want to ask those authors for permissions to do non-IETF things, or if the IETF decides it needs the rights to transfer rights to others for non-IETF purposes. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:53 PM > To: Gray, Eric; Spencer Dawkins > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Acknowledgements section in a RFC (Was: Last > Call: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP (draft-ietf-ltru-matching) > > > > --On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 12:33 -0400 "Gray, Eric" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Spencer, > > > > This opens up yet another can of worms. Suppose that > > everybody who makes a comment on a draft (substantive, or > > otherwise) has to be listed and every one listed is bound by > > BCPs relating to IPR, copyright, etc. in RFC content. > > They are so bound... read the Note Well. Whether they should be > so listed is a separate issue. > > > What happens if someone - perhaps having suggested that > > a word was misspelled - would prefer not to be bound by the > > BCPs (or perhaps is not permitted to be so bound)? Can they > > request to be left out? If they do, can an editor leave them > > out? > > Too bad. If they participate in the IETF at the level of either > attending meetings or saying anything, they are stuck. While > there are guidelines now (see Bob Braden's note) and guidelines > can always be further tuned, I think we need to give some > discretion to document editors about who should be listed --at > least until and unless we have a clear definition of, e.g., WG > membership. > > > It occasionally happens now that a draft departs from > > the original direction that some of the contributors wanted > > it to go, and - slightly less often - those that disagree > > with the outcome ask to be de-listed. There are good and > > reasonable reasons to allow this - especially as there may > > be very strong reactions from a particular employer that is > > seen as "advocating" something they do not intend to do. > > > > In such cases, these early contributors provided much > > of the content - even if the over-all outcome is not in line > > with their intentions. So, again, would we be able to omit > > their names? > > I have often dealt with that issue in acknowledgements by being > very explicit that all contributors may not agree with the > conclusions reached as a consequence of their suggestions (or > with their suggestions included). An even more extreme case > exists than the ones that you mention: someone raises an issue > and preference and the document is ultimately clarified to > reflect exactly the opposite preference. In some of these > cases, the document would not have addressed the topic at all > had the issue not been raised. The person who raised the issue > may still have made a contribution significant enough to justify > acknowledgement but may have always been in violent disagreement > with the conclusion reached by the IETF process about how to > deal with it. > > The underlying problem here is not unique to the IETF. And > people who don't want to contribute or be bound by the rules > should avoid participation -- there isn't any "whoops, I don't > like the results so the rules should retroactively not apply to > me and the fact that I participated at all should be erased" > option. Having such an option with regard to rule-conforming > would result in chaos. Again, the Note Well is very clear about > this (and there is a parallel discussion going in circles, > perhaps parallel ones, in the IPR WG). > > john > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
