Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
John, * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a document, make a series of interim decisions and announce them five days before the end of that period, and then leave the comment period termination date in place rather than restarting the review on the revised document. For a purely practical point of view: When I'm asked to review a document, and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know. That saves me the time to review something that is known to be changed anyway. In WGLCs, this happens all the time. Comments are made, authors acknowledge them and promise a new version. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Scott O. Bradner wrote: Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement? (At least, that is where people told me to start when I asked why we are doing this). Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement? sorry - I must have missed the announcement by the trust that they were responding to these RFCs Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 10:32 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote: John, * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a document, make a series of interim decisions and announce them five days before the end of that period, and then leave the comment period termination date in place rather than restarting the review on the revised document. For a purely practical point of view: When I'm asked to review a document, and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know. That saves me the time to review something that is known to be changed anyway. Sure. And the period of time you get to make the review starts when you get the changed version. That is why I believe this review period is, in practice, only five days long. In WGLCs, this happens all the time. Comments are made, authors acknowledge them and promise a new version. Sure. But, in a WG situation, everyone is assumed to be familiar with the documents and their development and the whole process is one of ongoing development and discussion _by the WG_ until the document is ready to send to the IESG. In that regard, I don't believe that we have any specific, consensus, rules about WG Last Calls -- they are simply an informal tool available for use by the Chair. When we had a document off for review by the community --other than the developing body-- we allow significant time, expect the document to be stable during that review period, and, if it is necessary to change the document after the review starts, we restart the review. So I suggest that your analogy is reasonable and, for the TLP, applies for reviews among the Trustees. It does not shed any useful light on Last Call-like reviews by the community. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement? did I miss the posting that lists each of the proposed chages with a pointer to the specific request for change (or specific need for change) in these RFCs? Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
On 7/19/09 1:29 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes nor did I see a statement from the Trust saying that there are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic reasons This would have helped me as well. Supposedly the changes would help one of my WG authors but I don't see how. So I've had to refer the matter to my corporate legal people who have not gotten back to me, and so I have a draft stall. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
Some history that may explain some of my and some other reaction to the recent postings by the Trust When the Trust was formed a number of us were quite worried that it would begin to see itself as self directed and not as a function whose purpose was to act at the direction of and in support of the IETF. My own reaction to the recent postings from the Trust is that the Trust is moving in the direction that some of us were worried about -- the Trust posts a bunch of proposed changes out of the blue. Out of the blue because I did not see any posting that explained why they felt that they needed to make changes or that these specific changes were in response to particular IETF requests (or legal threats) - see the original posting at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg57276.html The reaction from the Trust to the comments from the community has not been reassuring. It is true that they modified some of their proposed changes but they do not seem to have understood the more basic issue that I expressed in my message to the Trust on Tue Jun 23 14:57:12. What I do not see in this message is pointers to where the IETF asked that the TRUST to make these changes it would be fine by me if the Trust were to send a note saying that we see the following problems - (and maybe, here are options we see) what whould you like us to do, it seems less fine for the Trust to get out ahead of the folks it is supposed to be working for in changing things (even if it provides a chance for the IETF to comment) The fact that there was no response to that message or to a number of other messages (in particular, messages from John Klensin) reinforces the worry about an out of control Trust. I think the Trust needs to press the reset button and start again. Start with a posting that says what problems they feel the IETF has asked them to fix and what other problems the feel need fixing, along with the specific change they propose to deal with each problem. We can then talk about each issue to determine if there is consensus that the problem needs fixing and if the proposed solution meets the needs. And, unless there is a specific legal threat that the Trust can point at this process should not be rushed. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
FWIW, while I think that I may be even more concerned than Scott is --partially as a matter of personality and partially because I've seen what I consider more symptoms-- we are in basic agreement about the problem and the concerns. This is really about Trust behavior vis-a-vis the community (or communities) it is expected to serve and from which it is expected to take direction and less about one particular document. Put differently, the document is flawed but the process that produced it and the way that process handles input are much more seriously problematic. john --On Monday, July 20, 2009 09:05 -0400 Scott O. Bradner s...@harvard.edu wrote: Some history that may explain some of my and some other reaction to the recent postings by the Trust When the Trust was formed a number of us were quite worried that it would begin to see itself as self directed and not as a function whose purpose was to act at the direction of and in support of the IETF. My own reaction to the recent postings from the Trust is that the Trust is moving in the direction that some of us were worried about -- the Trust posts a bunch of proposed changes out of the blue. Out of the blue because I did not see any posting that explained why they felt that they needed to make changes or that these specific changes were in response to ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
On Jul 18, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: 2nd way: The IETF Trust determines that there is a specific legal risk that must be countered. In this case the IETF Trust posts a description of the specific risk and the proposed change to counter the risk. In this case the Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and adopts the changes if the IETF Chair determines that there is not IETF consensus against the specific changes. What do you think the Trust is doing in this case? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
On 7/20/09 at 9:09 AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: On Jul 18, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: [Numbering mine...] The IETF Trust determines that there is a specific legal risk that must be countered. In this case (***1***) the IETF Trust posts a description of the specific risk and the proposed change to counter the risk. In this case (***2***) the Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and adopts the changes if (***3***) the IETF Chair determines that there is not IETF consensus against the specific changes. What do you think the Trust is doing in this case? They have failed (and continue to fail) to complete step 1. They have made live changes during step 2 and have not reset the last call counter (which we do not do in IETF LC: If the changes are strictly editorial, the RFC Editor can be asked to make the changes, otherwise we reset the LC). And there is nothing in the 6/23 announcement or the 7/18 followup to indicate that they intend to fulfill step 3. To the contrary, it says: Please accept this message as a formal request by the IETF Trustees for your review and feedback on the proposed revision to the TLP document. The comment period will end on July 20, 2009. I expect the Trustees will decide on whether to adopt this revision shortly after July 20, 2009. Not good. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
John, * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a document, make a series of interim decisions and announce them five days before the end of that period, and then leave the comment period termination date in place rather than restarting the review on the revised document. For a purely practical point of view: When I'm asked to review a document, and before I start, the author realizes that a section needs to be modified, then this is something I'd like to know. That saves me the time to review something that is known to be changed anyway. Sure. And the period of time you get to make the review starts when you get the changed version. That is why I believe this review period is, in practice, only five days long. I'd think it is still 30 days. N changes were proposed, on comments made in the first days, it was clear that one of them wasn't a good idea, so it was dropped. No review is necessary for that, for the other N-1 changes, there is still a 30 day period ongoing. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Scott O. Bradner wrote: 1st way: The IETF community provides the IETF Trust with a specific request and the Trust provides possible changes or new text to meet the specific request. The IETF request can come form a WG, in which case it should be in the form of a BCP (an IETF consensus document) or, with a public justification, from the IETF Chair (or maybe the IAB Chair). The Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and the changes are adopted if the IETF Chair determines that there is IETF consensus support for the specific changes. Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? RFC 5377 and 5378 were published and other issues were raised later on. The Trust responded by reviewing the TLP and suggest modifications based on the RFC and discussions afterwards. The modifications are now out for a 30 day community review. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes nor did I see a statement from the Trust saying that there are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic reasons maybe there were such statements and I missed them what I did see was a bunch of changes without anything that said specifically what problem each change was trying to solve (not a justification for the change but a reason that any change is needed at all) we have been changing the IETF's IPR rules far too often (and I'm in no small way responsible for many of the changes) we should get out of that mode and only be making changes where there is a speific need to do so. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
Henk Uijterwaal henk at ripe dot net wrote: Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? RFC 5377 and 5378 were published and other issues were raised later on. The Trust responded by reviewing the TLP and suggest modifications based on the RFC and discussions afterwards. The modifications are now out for a 30 day community review. The Trustees announced six changes on July 18, and set the end of the comment period at July 23. That's not a 30-day community review of the six changes, that's a 5-day review. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
On Jul 19, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: Henk Uijterwaal henk at ripe dot net wrote: Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? RFC 5377 and 5378 were published and other issues were raised later on. The Trust responded by reviewing the TLP and suggest modifications based on the RFC and discussions afterwards. The modifications are now out for a 30 day community review. The Trustees announced six changes on July 18, and set the end of the comment period at July 23. That's not a 30-day community review of the six changes, that's a 5-day review. As Marshall's email of 18 July said: Since the original call went out on the 23rd of June, the comment period is extended to the 23rd of July. The 'six changes' reflected interim decisions made by the Trustees as a result of community input during this period. A revised TLP will not be adopted until after the 30 day period, likely to be while in Stockholm. Those 6 interim decisions and the remaining document are still before the community for feedback to the Trustees. Ray Trustee -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)
--On Sunday, July 19, 2009 12:18 PM -0400 Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org wrote: The Trustees announced six changes on July 18, and set the end of the comment period at July 23. That's not a 30-day community review of the six changes, that's a 5-day review. As Marshall's email of 18 July said: Since the original call went out on the 23rd of June, the comment period is extended to the 23rd of July. The 'six changes' reflected interim decisions made by the Trustees as a result of community input during this period. A revised TLP will not be adopted until after the 30 day period, likely to be while in Stockholm. Those 6 interim decisions and the remaining document are still before the community for feedback to the Trustees. Ray, Noting that this issue is included in my request to the Trustees that they review these decisions and the ways of doing business that cause them... * There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a document, make a series of interim decisions and announce them five days before the end of that period, and then leave the comment period termination date in place rather than restarting the review on the revised document. * BCP 101 requires that the IAOC and, by extension, the Trustees, explain the reasoning for their decisions. While Marshall's interim posting arguably does that for the changes that were made (the community's comments were accepted), it does not do so for any of the changes that were not made after other community comments. Independent of when the comment period ends, that makes the interim announcement (and probably the original one) invalid. --john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Hello; We (the Trustees) have received feedback on the proposed changes to the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP) and have agreed to take the following actions. Since the original call went out on the 23rd of June, the comment period is extended to the 23rd of July. 1. Reject lowering the TLP community review period to 14 days from the current 30 day period. (2.e) 2. Retain the ability to include a short pointer to the BSD license for Code Component legends (6.d) 3. Reference the BSD license as the 'Simplified BSD License' (4.c). With this, the new language is 4. c. License.In addition to the licenses granted under Section 3, unless one of the legends contained in Section 6.c.i or 6.c.ii is included in an IETF Document containing Code Components, such Code Components are also licensed to each person who wishes to receive such a license on the terms of the Simplified BSD License, as described below. Also The above BSD License is intended to be compatible with the Simplified BSD License template published at http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php . 4. Move the URL in Section 6b to follow IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents as proposed 5. Provide a TLP mailing list for interested parties to provide input regarding proposed policy changes before posting for community review 6. Provide the rationale for proposed changes in the future, rather than a summary listing of the changes The rationale for the remaining summary of proposed changes will be sent in a separate email. We have not heard feedback on the remaining changes (see below) and without additional comments those proposed changes will be implemented. The full text can be found at http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html under Draft Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (18 June 2009) (TLP). I would urge interested parties to read and comment by the close of the comment period. Regards Marshall Eubanks Chair IETF Trust On Jun 23, 2009, at 1:32 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: The IETF Trustees invite your comments on the proposed revisions to the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (TLP) policy. The proposed revisions are in rtf, pdf and doc formats and located at: http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html under Draft Policies and Procedures for IETF Documents. This is a summary of the proposed revisions: 2.e -- the review period for TLP changes has been changed from 30 to 14 days, which is consistent with the last-call period for other IETF documents 2.f -- this new language describes the conditions under which the IETF Trust will assume licensing and copyright responsibility for IAB, IRTF and Independent Stream submissions, should the managers of those streams request that it do so. 4.a -- the URL for the list of Code Components has been updated 4.c -- clarifies that the BSD License may not be applied to Code Components that come from IETF Documents as to which the Contributor has prohibited the making of derivative works. 4.e -- this new section clarifies the legend requirements for Code Components that are used in software under the BSD License. In short, the user must include the full BSD License text or a shorter pointer to it (which is set forth in Section 6.d) 6 -- the language regarding placement of legends on IETF Documents has been clarified. Placement on the first page is no longer required, and authority for placement of the legends is with the RFC Editor and IESG. 6.a - the words to IETF have been removed, to enable submission to IAB, IRFT and other streams. 6.b -- a new sentence has been added to the legend that must be placed on all IETF Documents, pointing out the BSD License requirements described in 4.e above and emphasizing that code in IETF Documents comes without any warranty, as described in the BSD License. 6.c -- some minor clean-up edits 6.d -- the BSD legend/pointer described in 4.e above 7.a -- correction of capitalization Please accept this message as a formal request by the IETF Trustees for your review and feedback on the proposed revision to the TLP document. The comment period will end on July 20, 2009. I expect the Trustees will decide on whether to adopt this revision shortly after July 20, 2009. Regards, and thanks in advance, Marshall Eubanks IETF Trust Chair ___ Trustees mailing list trust...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
This is just a nit, but I did get a question on it : Since the acronym TLP is only used twice in the Trust Legal Provisions document, the acronym will not be used in that document and the term Trust Legal Provisions will be spelled out each time. Regards Marshall On Jul 18, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hello; We (the Trustees) have received feedback on the proposed changes to the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP) and have agreed to take the following actions. Since the original call went out on the 23rd of June, the comment period is extended to the 23rd of July. 1. Reject lowering the TLP community review period to 14 days from the current 30 day period. (2.e) 2. Retain the ability to include a short pointer to the BSD license for Code Component legends (6.d) 3. Reference the BSD license as the 'Simplified BSD License' (4.c). With this, the new language is 4. c. License.In addition to the licenses granted under Section 3, unless one of the legends contained in Section 6.c.i or 6.c.ii is included in an IETF Document containing Code Components, such Code Components are also licensed to each person who wishes to receive such a license on the terms of the Simplified BSD License, as described below. Also The above BSD License is intended to be compatible with the Simplified BSD License template published at http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php . 4. Move the URL in Section 6b to follow IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents as proposed 5. Provide a TLP mailing list for interested parties to provide input regarding proposed policy changes before posting for community review 6. Provide the rationale for proposed changes in the future, rather than a summary listing of the changes The rationale for the remaining summary of proposed changes will be sent in a separate email. We have not heard feedback on the remaining changes (see below) and without additional comments those proposed changes will be implemented. The full text can be found at http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html under Draft Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (18 June 2009) (TLP). I would urge interested parties to read and comment by the close of the comment period. Regards Marshall Eubanks Chair IETF Trust On Jun 23, 2009, at 1:32 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: The IETF Trustees invite your comments on the proposed revisions to the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (TLP) policy. The proposed revisions are in rtf, pdf and doc formats and located at: http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html under Draft Policies and Procedures for IETF Documents. This is a summary of the proposed revisions: 2.e -- the review period for TLP changes has been changed from 30 to 14 days, which is consistent with the last-call period for other IETF documents 2.f -- this new language describes the conditions under which the IETF Trust will assume licensing and copyright responsibility for IAB, IRTF and Independent Stream submissions, should the managers of those streams request that it do so. 4.a -- the URL for the list of Code Components has been updated 4.c -- clarifies that the BSD License may not be applied to Code Components that come from IETF Documents as to which the Contributor has prohibited the making of derivative works. 4.e -- this new section clarifies the legend requirements for Code Components that are used in software under the BSD License. In short, the user must include the full BSD License text or a shorter pointer to it (which is set forth in Section 6.d) 6 -- the language regarding placement of legends on IETF Documents has been clarified. Placement on the first page is no longer required, and authority for placement of the legends is with the RFC Editor and IESG. 6.a - the words to IETF have been removed, to enable submission to IAB, IRFT and other streams. 6.b -- a new sentence has been added to the legend that must be placed on all IETF Documents, pointing out the BSD License requirements described in 4.e above and emphasizing that code in IETF Documents comes without any warranty, as described in the BSD License. 6.c -- some minor clean-up edits 6.d -- the BSD legend/pointer described in 4.e above 7.a -- correction of capitalization Please accept this message as a formal request by the IETF Trustees for your review and feedback on the proposed revision to the TLP document. The comment period will end on July 20, 2009. I expect the Trustees will decide on whether to adopt this revision shortly after July 20, 2009. Regards, and thanks in advance, Marshall Eubanks IETF Trust Chair ___ Trustees mailing list trust...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees ___ Ietf mailing list
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
tme wrote: the comment period is extended to the 23rd of July. are we under some legal threat that requires this unseemly haste? Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
I may have missed it but I did not see any response to my posting from when these changes were first proposed along the lines of what John just posted - I thought that the Trust was supposed to be responsive to requests from the IETF not go off on its own figuring out things to do I would like a clear statement of what the trust thinks its role is and if it not to be responsive to requests from the IETF I think we need to have a discussion on the IETF list to understand if any other role is one that is supported by the IETF community Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Hi, I am baffled why this announcement, of fundamental importance, was not sent to the correct list for IETF announcements. The same applies to the original announcement, sent as I understand it on 23 June, at a time when I wasn't reading the discussion list for personal reasons. I will comment substantively when I've had a chance to read through the proposal and John's appeal. However, I would suggest that the announcement should be sent to the IETF announcement list, and that the one month comment period should start again at that point. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
On Jul 18, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: tme wrote: the comment period is extended to the 23rd of July. are we under some legal threat that requires this unseemly haste? By some miracle of drag and drop, the original post on June 23rd had an old, incorrect, date for the end of the 30 day comment period, and this just provides the correct date. Regards Marshall Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
The proposed change to the boilerplate has not drawn a single negative comment, and there are a few documents in the RFC Editor queue that are waiting for this change. My preference would be for the Trust to approve the revised TLP that have not received any negative comments, and thus release the documents in the RFC Editor queue. Then, the Trust should put forward alternative text for the sections that have received negative comments, starting another review period. Russ At 06:49 PM 7/18/2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Hi, I am baffled why this announcement, of fundamental importance, was not sent to the correct list for IETF announcements. The same applies to the original announcement, sent as I understand it on 23 June, at a time when I wasn't reading the discussion list for personal reasons. I will comment substantively when I've had a chance to read through the proposal and John's appeal. However, I would suggest that the announcement should be sent to the IETF announcement list, and that the one month comment period should start again at that point. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
tme said: 6. Provide the rationale for proposed changes in the future, rather than a summary listing of the changes this, to me, is exactly the wrong way for the IETF Trust to work. I do not want a rationale for proposed changes it seems to me that the Trust should work in one of 3 ways depending on the situation 1st way: The IETF community provides the IETF Trust with a specific request and the Trust provides possible changes or new text to meet the specific request. The IETF request can come form a WG, in which case it should be in the form of a BCP (an IETF consensus document) or, with a public justification, from the IETF Chair (or maybe the IAB Chair). The Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and the changes are adopted if the IETF Chair determines that there is IETF consensus support for the specific changes. 2nd way: The IETF Trust determines that there is a specific legal risk that must be countered. In this case the IETF Trust posts a description of the specific risk and the proposed change to counter the risk. In this case the Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and adopts the changes if the IETF Chair determines that there is not IETF consensus against the specific changes. 3rd way: The IETF Trust determines that there are changes it would like to make that are not in response to a specific legal risk. In this case the Trust publishes a list of the reasons they feel that the changes are needed and the proposed changes. (Note: not a list of changes and the rationale for the changes - I think the IETF needs to agree that the problems are ones that need fixing first) The Trust publishes the proposed changes with a 4-week last call and the changes are adopted if the IETF Chair determines that there is IETF consensus support for each specific change. In no case does the IETF Trust adopt any changes without a public statement concerning IETF consensus by the IETF Chair. i.e., there is no default adoption of changes by the Trust. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Doug: My preference would be for the Trust to approve the revised TLP that have not received any negative comments, and thus release the documents in the RFC Editor queue. Then, the Trust should put forward alternative text for the sections that have received negative comments, starting another review period. So there will likely be yet another revision of the TLP text? That means the already-overworked volunteer tool developers will have to add another option to generate new boilerplate, and I-D authors will endure another round of idnits telling them their boilerplate is out of date. The document that has been under review since June 23rd does require a change to the boilerplate. The period of time that the old boilerplate will be accepted for I-D submission should be significant in this case. There are changes necessary to implement draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08 I hope that these changes and the ones for the hopefully-soon-to-be-approved TLP can be handled in one release. Since the community is not happy with the proposed TLP changes in other areas, it is difficult to predict whether acceptable handling of these issues will have an impact on the boilerplate. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Russ Housley housley at vigilsec dot com wrote: My preference would be for the Trust to approve the revised TLP that have not received any negative comments, and thus release the documents in the RFC Editor queue. Then, the Trust should put forward alternative text for the sections that have received negative comments, starting another review period. So there will likely be yet another revision of the TLP text? That means the already-overworked volunteer tool developers will have to add another option to generate new boilerplate, and I-D authors will endure another round of idnits telling them their boilerplate is out of date. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
But, using this draft with the serious problem Simon spotted and the minor no justification for adding boilerplate one that I spotted as the most recent of what have been many examples, it appears that the IAOC/Trustees are composed of human beings with many other things on their minds and calendars rather than of infallible entities. John -- this is just to note that the items raised by you and Simon aren't errors caused by hurried or sloppy work by the Trust, they are reasonable points of disagreement over policy and interpretation. It's certainly legitimate for you to raise and discuss these points, but you shouldn't assume that, just because you or Simon have a particular interpretation, the alternate interpretation embodied in the TLP is a careless error. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:20:33AM -0400, Contreras, Jorge wrote: aren't errors caused by hurried or sloppy work by the Trust, they are reasonable points of disagreement over policy and interpretation. It's certainly legitimate for you to raise and discuss these points, but you shouldn't assume that, just because you or Simon have a particular interpretation, the alternate interpretation embodied in the TLP is a careless error. That remark suggests to me that John's proposal of iterative work is justified. If there are fundamental disagreements about policy and interpretation, and not just picky details, that are coming out in the short review period allotted, then presumably there are deep disagreements that need to be worked out before the wider IETF can be expected to agree to some policy. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
