Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/25/2012 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Hi Dave, Independent Stream authors well might not be part of the IETF -- always a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF. Any I-D author MUST be part of IETF otherwise what is IETF then, how do we define it? I think we should not make simple facts complicated. The most important part of IETF is the participant that does volunteer his work effort and time for the IETF. However I assume you agree with me because you mentioned might. AB No sir - the IETF is a GSO meaning it must be transparent. Otherwise it is a simple fraternal organization and it should not be allowed to stand as a GSO because of its refusal to be open and transparent. As to the need for an open standards process as an alternative method... everything you cite above is the reason that is so necessary. Todd Glassey No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5291 - Release Date: 09/25/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi Russ, I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important that individuals get to make input to new standards not only companies. I am afraid that only companies are controlling the Internet standards which seems bad and does not follow the IETF mission. Therefore, there SHOULD be a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D because they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable discussion. If there is no procedure then individuals or other organisations will look for another way to standards their work. AB --- but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard track, Todd: The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards track RFCs. Russ
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi Dave, Independent Stream authors well might not be part of the IETF -- always a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF. Any I-D author MUST be part of IETF otherwise what is IETF then, how do we define it? I think we should not make simple facts complicated. The most important part of IETF is the participant that does volunteer his work effort and time for the IETF. However I assume you agree with me because you mentioned might. AB
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important that individuals get to make input to new standards not only companies. ... Therefore, there SHOULD be a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D because they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable discussion. If there is no procedure then individuals or other organisations will look for another way to standards their work. It seems to me that the above has nothing to do with the topic of removing I-Ds from the archive. As far as I know, the number of I-Ds that have been taken down --or even expired early without recourse-- in the history of the IETF because someone didn't like the ideas has been zero. More important, someone who believes that a WG unreasonably rejected a useful idea or who wishes to see the reasons for WG decisions documented has several ways to accomplish that. An Informational discussion could be submitted as an individual submission to the IESG or as an independent submission to the ISE. My experience and observation is that such analyses or critiques are almost always published as RFCs --the really permanent, archival, form around here-- if they are thoughtful and well-reasoned. I've seen rants rejected for RFC publication, but that is because they are unsupported rants, not because they disagree with some community conclusion. john p.s. As someone who has spent far more of my IETF existence as an individual rather than as someone supported by, much less controlled by, a company, I see company domination as a risk but not one that has been an actual problem in any but a very small number of specific topics/areas.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Dave: The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order to do so. That said, the IESG firmly believes that the collection of I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Therefore, removal of a I-D from the Public I-D Archive should teated as a significant event. Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG statement. On behalf of the IESG, Russ --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including the IAB and IRTF Research Groups, have chosen to distribute working documents as I-Ds. The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream also uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF? No. The Independent Stream is not part of the IETF. Like the IAB and the IRTF, the independent Stream has chosen to use I-Ds. RFC 4844 says: 5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical community than the IETF. The Independent Submission stream is defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that are outside the scope of the streams identified above. Generally speaking, approval of documents in this stream falls under the purview of the RFC Editor, and the RFC Editor seeks input to its review from the IESG. The process for reviewing and approving documents in the Independent Submission stream is defined by o Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor (RFC 4846 [RFC4846]). o The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures (RFC 3932 [RFC3932]). (Since RFC 4844 was written, RFC3932 was obsoleted by RFC 5742.) I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current I-Ds are stored in the I-D Repository. Second, current and past I-Ds are stored in a Public I-D Archive. While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time, They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the regular 6-month timeout. No, this is not new. It goes back to RFC 1310 in March 1992. If you publish draft-crocker-blah-blah-00.txt, is is very ofter replaced by -01. The -00 is taken down before the six month expiration. RFC 1310 said: An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the Internet Draft directory. A document that has remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply removed from the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an Internet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. This remains today; the I-D boilerplate says: Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as work in progress. I-Ds generally remain in the Public I-D Archive to support easy comparison with previous versions. This availability facilitates review, comment, and revision. An entry in the I-D Repository is removed as part of normal process when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all of these situations, the I-D remains in the Public I-D Archive. The text up to this point mostly looks like a general set of policy assertions about I-Ds. Those need to exist separately as a formal policy statement about the series and its archive(s). That would leave the current statement to focus on its specific topic. These were included to provide context for the policy statement. As we have seen on this thread, there has been at least as much discussion about these background paragraphs as the policy. An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with consensus of the IESG. There are two situations when the IESG will take this action. First, to comply with a duly authorized court order. Second, to resolve some form of abuse. This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express comfort with this language? Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this is the resulting text. This text was never a part that was edited in the exchange. If possible, a removed I-D will be replaced
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Russ, On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Dave: The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order to do so. I hadn't remembered that we have existing text that already covers this, in RFC 2026. (It's also worth noting that, apparently, IETF counsel considers the existing RFC 2026 text sufficient.) What isn't clear is why you are promoting additional language which seems to conflict with 2026, introduces some vague terminology (abuse, leadership), and covers only a subset of I-Ds. The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream also uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF? No. The Independent Stream is not part of the IETF. Like the IAB and the IRTF, the independent Stream has chosen to use I-Ds. RFC 4844 says: 5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical community than the IETF. The Independent Submission stream is defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that are outside the scope of the streams identified above. First, I note that you didn't respond about the IRTF or the IAB. And my original query should have included the RFC Editor (which happens to fall under the IAB.) Apparently you consider the IRTF, IAB and RFC Editor all to be outside the IETF. Second, it appears that you are taking the served a broader Internet technical community than the IETF language as the basis for declaring the Independent Stream also to be outside of the IETF. I think you are confusing the source with the agency and result that produces the output. By implication, your assessment seems to mean that the only target for the output of working groups are people who participate in the IETF. Or that anyone who consumes the output of an IETF working group is automatically part of the IETF. That is, you seem to be confusing the source of authors with the publication vehicle itself and the target audience(s) of the work. Independent Stream authors well might not be part of the IETF -- always a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF. This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express comfort with this language? Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this is the resulting text. This text was never a part that was edited in the exchange. You are saying that IETF Counsel did not offer comment on this bit of text? Actually, I note that you didn't actually answer my question: Does the IETF Counsel like the text? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Dave: This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express comfort with this language? Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this is the resulting text. This text was never a part that was edited in the exchange. You are saying that IETF Counsel did not offer comment on this bit of text? Actually, I note that you didn't actually answer my question: Does the IETF Counsel like the text? While counsel offered comment on other parts of the text, none were offered on the part you cite. I am sure that comments would have been offered on the part you cite if it caused concern. Russ
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net Apparently you consider the IRTF, IAB and RFC Editor all to be outside the IETF. You apparently seem (from this) to think they're not? Wow. Noel
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Dave: Russ - can the Independent Submission Stream (ISS) be used to create a fully franchised IETF Standard Process??? i.e. could I for instance through the ISS process submit a I-D and a RFC-Framework Proposal with that? In this case the framework proposal would define the 'canonization process' for this specific piece of IP and set the milestones for this independent stream standard??? This would be a very very good thing I think if it were to become possible. The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order to do so. Which will apply to its publication and continued use rights how? I still think we need to answer the specific question as to what this actually means to the previous licensing... That said, the IESG firmly believes that the collection of I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Therefore, removal of a I-D from the Public I-D Archive should teated as a significant event. Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG statement. On behalf of the IESG, Russ --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including the IAB and IRTF Research Groups, have chosen to distribute working documents as I-Ds. The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream also uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF? No. The Independent Stream is not part of the IETF. Like the IAB and the IRTF, the independent Stream has chosen to use I-Ds. RFC 4844 says: 5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical community than the IETF. The Independent Submission stream is defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that are outside the scope of the streams identified above. Generally speaking, approval of documents in this stream falls under the purview of the RFC Editor, and the RFC Editor seeks input to its review from the IESG. The process for reviewing and approving documents in the Independent Submission stream is defined by o Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor (RFC 4846 [RFC4846]). o The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures (RFC 3932 [RFC3932]). (Since RFC 4844 was written, RFC3932 was obsoleted by RFC 5742.) I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current I-Ds are stored in the I-D Repository. Second, current and past I-Ds are stored in a Public I-D Archive. While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time, They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the regular 6-month timeout. No, this is not new. It goes back to RFC 1310 in March 1992. If you publish draft-crocker-blah-blah-00.txt, is is very ofter replaced by -01. The -00 is taken down before the six month expiration. RFC 1310 said: An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the Internet Draft directory. A document that has remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply removed from the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an Internet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. This remains today; the I-D boilerplate says: Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as work in progress. I-Ds generally remain in the Public I-D Archive to support easy comparison with previous versions. This availability facilitates review, comment, and revision. An entry in the I-D Repository is removed as part of normal process when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all of these situations, the I-D remains in the Public I-D Archive. The text up to this point mostly looks like a general set of policy assertions about I-Ds. Those need to exist separately as a formal policy statement about the series and its archive(s). That would leave the current statement to focus on its specific topic. These were included to provide context for the policy statement. As we have seen on this thread, there has been at least as much discussion about
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Todd: The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards track RFCs. Russ On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:36 PM, tglassey wrote: On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Dave: Russ - can the Independent Submission Stream (ISS) be used to create a fully franchised IETF Standard Process??? i.e. could I for instance through the ISS process submit a I-D and a RFC-Framework Proposal with that? In this case the framework proposal would define the 'canonization process' for this specific piece of IP and set the milestones for this independent stream standard??? This would be a very very good thing I think if it were to become possible. The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order to do so. Which will apply to its publication and continued use rights how? I still think we need to answer the specific question as to what this actually means to the previous licensing... That said, the IESG firmly believes that the collection of I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Therefore, removal of a I-D from the Public I-D Archive should teated as a significant event. Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG statement. On behalf of the IESG, Russ --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including the IAB and IRTF Research Groups, have chosen to distribute working documents as I-Ds. The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream also uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF? No. The Independent Stream is not part of the IETF. Like the IAB and the IRTF, the independent Stream has chosen to use I-Ds. RFC 4844 says: 5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical community than the IETF. The Independent Submission stream is defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that are outside the scope of the streams identified above. Generally speaking, approval of documents in this stream falls under the purview of the RFC Editor, and the RFC Editor seeks input to its review from the IESG. The process for reviewing and approving documents in the Independent Submission stream is defined by o Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor (RFC 4846 [RFC4846]). o The IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures (RFC 3932 [RFC3932]). (Since RFC 4844 was written, RFC3932 was obsoleted by RFC 5742.) I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current I-Ds are stored in the I-D Repository. Second, current and past I-Ds are stored in a Public I-D Archive. While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time, They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the regular 6-month timeout. No, this is not new. It goes back to RFC 1310 in March 1992. If you publish draft-crocker-blah-blah-00.txt, is is very ofter replaced by -01. The -00 is taken down before the six month expiration. RFC 1310 said: An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the Internet Draft directory. A document that has remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply removed from the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an Internet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period. This remains today; the I-D boilerplate says: Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as work in progress. I-Ds generally remain in the Public I-D Archive to support easy comparison with previous versions. This availability facilitates review, comment, and revision. An entry in the I-D Repository is removed as part of normal process when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all of these situations, the I-D remains in the Public I-D Archive. The text up to this point mostly looks like a general set of policy assertions about I-Ds. Those need to exist separately as a formal policy statement about the series and its archive(s). That
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Answering two bits I happen know the answers to: On 9/21/12 7:48 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- [...] While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time, They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the regular 6-month timeout. 2026, section 2.2: An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of publishing a specification; specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in the previous section. Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time. That language dates back to RFC 1310 (March 1992). Not new. An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with consensus of the IESG. There are two situations when the IESG will take this action. First, to comply with a duly authorized court order. Second, to resolve some form of abuse. This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express comfort with this language? Counsel actually wanted us to broaden the language, thinking abuse was too limiting. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Saturday, September 22, 2012 09:33 -0500 Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote: ... An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with consensus of the IESG. There are two situations when the IESG will take this action. First, to comply with a duly authorized court order. Second, to resolve some form of abuse. This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express comfort with this language? Counsel actually wanted us to broaden the language, thinking abuse was too limiting. Yeah. I think the new language is a considerable improvement and I can live with it, but only because I think abuse can be interpreted very broadly should someone be able to convince the IESG there is a problem or unfairness associated with leaving things up. My preference would be to go back to what I believe was the spirit of the 2026 ...no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time, leaving the IESG with discretion to consider individual cases and decide what to do without having to assign them to a category (whether court order or abuse). Three observations in that context: -- Whatever the language of BCP 78/79, or even the IPR language of 2026, _permits_, doesn't imply that we should do it, only that we (perhaps) can -- I think the IESG should be more sympathetic to removal requests for earlier documents that were posted with the understanding that there would be no IETF-maintained authoritative public archive than to ones posted after the public archive became the practice. That is not to suggest that all requests about early document should be approved or that all requests about later ones should be denied, but, as a general guideline, I think it would be helpful. -- I also believe that the IESG should be more reluctant to remove a document whose successors are still under active development (especially the immediately-previous or otherwise very recent drafts for which diffs are important) than documents that are only of historical interest. If nothing else, it is easy to make a case that having those recent documents with active successors in the archive is serving the needs of the IETF, while it is somewhat harder to defend keeping a document that is of historical interest only on that basis. None of the above has to be written into a policy, but I believe that the interests of the overall community and suitable respect for the desires of authors, would be better served by such guidelines than by, e.g., trying to figure out a specific and yet sufficiently flexible definition of abuse. john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/22/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: Counsel actually wanted us to broaden the language, thinking abuse was too limiting. Wow. Well, that certainly satisfies the question I asked. Thanks, I think. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi John, At 09:49 20-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote: post-expiration. I think that, as a community, we ought to respect those assumptions more than saying, effectively, we are going to maintain a public archive no matter what commitments you thought were made to you because we can and because we don't think you will actually sue us. The latter is just bad for the community, whether it works or not. In a past century there was a discussion about maintaining a public archive of expired I-Ds. There is a striking difference in the arguments; there wasn't much discussion about the legal side. Nowadays an individual has to hire a practicing lawyer from the state of Virginia before making any contribution. It was also argued that the IETF would need a policy to decide on whether to turn I-Ds into an archival series. IENs and RFCs where mentioned. In those ancient times the question was also about distribution instead of publication. It was also pointed out that it was better not to perpetuate bad ideas. There wasn't any mention of the social contract. At a guess it was probably because everything was not a matter of rights or legal issues. Or it might be that social contracts were part of the obvious. A sift of long disagreements might show that the sensible opposing argument is often missed because of the sugarcoating. A dismissive attitude might also have something to do with that. Consensus is when no man or woman is left standing on the battlefield. Regards, -sm
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:22, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time had been expired for a year. The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be). Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file to internet-drafts@. Interesting. Actually, in this case I'd rather have the author resubmit, just to make sure not only the rest of the WG, but also the author continues to like the draft... (But I'm not chair for this WG.) (My problem was not that draft expiry makes the process more complicated, but that the chairs didn't notice the expiry and I can't blame them.) Grüße, Carsten
RE: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
(My problem was not that draft expiry makes the process more complicated, but that the chairs didn't notice the expiry and I can't blame them.) Well, the system does send out automatic reminders (entitled Expiration Impending: draft-foo) to all authors and copied to the WG chairs. So not noticing is almost as bad as continuing to post emails on this thread without changing the subject line :-Z Cheers, Adrian
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I believe that the IETF has all of the necessary rights to reproduce, distribute, and display publicly all Internet-Drafts. Here is my analysis: In RFC 1310, March 1992, the IAB describes Internet-Drafts, but it does not define the rights that contributors grant. As best I can determine, the very first I-D was posted shortly after this RFC was published. In RFC 1602, March 1994, the grant of rights becomes very explicit: Contributor agrees to grant, and does grant to ISOC, a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any copyrights in the contribution to reproduce, distribute, perform or display publicly and prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, and to reproduce, distribute and perform or display publicly any such derivative works, in any form and in all languages, and to authorize others to do so. In RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996, the explicit grant of rights is published in a consensus BCP: Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This license includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the license of the original contribution. Internet-Drafts provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. For this reason, removal of an I-D from the Public I-D Archive is a significant action. If someone posted an I-D under RFC 1310, when the grant was not explicit, and they want to have their Internet-Draft removed from the Public I-D Archive, then they ought to request that action from the IESG. However, RFC 1602 and RFC 2026 are quite clear about the grant. The request for removal of an Internet-Draft posted after March 1994 needs to be associated with some legal action or some form of abuse. Russ
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi, Russ, FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues: 1) all the IDs before March 1994 which should not be published at all until permission is given (opt-in) 2) all the IDs published before boilerplate inclusion was required the IETF cannot merely assert its rights; authors need to consent (and if submission were consent then the IEEE, ACM, et al. wouldn't need the copyright transfer statements they regularly use) Others have noted that click-based rights transfer may not be sufficient as well (the organizations above largely still use explicit signature agreements). And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court. Joe On 9/21/2012 1:28 PM, Russ Housley wrote: I believe that the IETF has all of the necessary rights to reproduce, distribute, and display publicly all Internet-Drafts. Here is my analysis: In RFC 1310, March 1992, the IAB describes Internet-Drafts, but it does not define the rights that contributors grant. As best I can determine, the very first I-D was posted shortly after this RFC was published. In RFC 1602, March 1994, the grant of rights becomes very explicit: Contributor agrees to grant, and does grant to ISOC, a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any copyrights in the contribution to reproduce, distribute, perform or display publicly and prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, and to reproduce, distribute and perform or display publicly any such derivative works, in any form and in all languages, and to authorize others to do so. In RFC 2026, BCP 9, October 1996, the explicit grant of rights is published in a consensus BCP: Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under any copyrights in the contribution. This license includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the license of the original contribution. Internet-Drafts provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. For this reason, removal of an I-D from the Public I-D Archive is a significant action. If someone posted an I-D under RFC 1310, when the grant was not explicit, and they want to have their Internet-Draft removed from the Public I-D Archive, then they ought to request that action from the IESG. However, RFC 1602 and RFC 2026 are quite clear about the grant. The request for removal of an Internet-Draft posted after March 1994 needs to be associated with some legal action or some form of abuse. Russ
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Looks good to me. Jari
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Overall I like this--enough wiggle-room to deal with situations we cannot foresee now, but still sufficient guidance for the IESGs to come. One small issue, inline. Stephan On 9.21.2012 13:45 , IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: [...] When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy will be kept in a location accessible only by the IETF Leadership and the IETF Secretariat. It's quite likely, if there really were a court order to remove an I-D from public access, that there is also a demand to destroy any copies. The sentence above could be read that the IETF would keep a copy nevertheless. To cure this, you could insert a sentence This copy will be removed only based on a court order or a legal request of comparable strength.. In other words, IESG common sense is enough to remove an I-D from the publicly accessible archive, but it takes a court order to remove it for good. [...]
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court. These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top. --Paul Hoffman
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/21/2012 2:48 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court. These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top. It was an observation, not a threat (at all). No analysis of legal matters is ever decided until a court weighs in. Lawyers will say what they are willing to defend - pro and con - but their statements aren't fact. So even if they claim this is cut-and-dry, it isn't until case is decided. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Joe, While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are getting a little over the top. Specifically... --On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: Hi, Russ, FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues: 1) all the IDs before March 1994 which should not be published at all until permission is given (opt-in) While I agree, I think that most of the reason for that has to do with implicit or explicit IETF commitments to individuals rather than legal constraints. That is not to say the legal constraints aren't there. IANAL, much less a judge, and have no opinion on that which anyone else should pay attention to. Suppose that, as a modified form of opt-out under the latest proposed policy, you were to send a note to the IESG asking that all of your old I-Ds be taken down from the public archive on the grounds that having them public is abusive of commitments you have good reason to believe were made to you.If the IESG said nope, not abusive enough, you could then either appeal (probably a more constructive way of airing things under our rules than involving the legal process) or claim that the IETF had no rights to keep a document posted to which you believe you have retained copyright and get a DMCA take-down request issued. Such a request would give the IESG and IETF Trust the opportunity to consider how much risk they wanted to assume to keep your documents posted and possibly to discuss that with the community. Sadly, they might consider the odds that you would actually choose to sue in their risk assessment (see below). That wouldn't let you made document availability decisions by default for anyone else (e.g., by forcing opt-in), but would, IMO, focus the discussion in a way that increasingly heated comments on the IETF list would not. ... And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court. Well, it would be determined by a court only if someone felt strongly enough about a particular document or set of documents to go to the expense of going down that path. I am unhappy with the current IPR regime, unhappy enough with current practices that some things that would have been posted as I-Ds under the policies as I understood them a decade or two ago just don't make it into the system. Perhaps that is A Good Thing, perhaps not, but one of the inevitable consequences of an IPR policy that gives the IETF more and more discretion over what to do with ideas and contributions that aren't turned into standards is that it will see fewer such contributions. Only the community can judge whether that is a good tradeoff -- a judgment that is made more difficult by not being able to ascertain what it isn't seeing. But I'm not nearly unhappy enough to try to drag the IETF into court over the issue, partially because I know that doing so wouldn't cause the documents to go away even if I won. If no one feels mean-tempered enough to launch such a court case, then the policy won't be settled by a judge, it will stand because no one challenges it. john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/21/2012 4:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Joe, While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are getting a little over the top. Specifically... --On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: Hi, Russ, FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues: 1) all the IDs before March 1994 which should not be published at all until permission is given (opt-in) While I agree, I think that most of the reason for that has to do with implicit or explicit IETF commitments to individuals rather than legal constraints. That is not to say the legal constraints aren't there. IANAL, much less a judge, and have no opinion on that which anyone else should pay attention to. IMO, the IETF should not set an example of post what you want, and take things down only on legal threat. It's reasonable to post what the IETF has rights to. Posting things that the IETF *wants* but does *not* have explicit rights too seems a non-starter. Suppose that, as a modified form of opt-out under the latest proposed policy, you were to send a note to the IESG asking that all of your old I-Ds be taken down from the public archive on the grounds that having them public is abusive of commitments you have good reason to believe were made to you.If the IESG said nope, not abusive enough, you could then either appeal (probably a more constructive way of airing things under our rules than involving the legal process) or claim that the IETF had no rights to keep a document posted to which you believe you have retained copyright and get a DMCA take-down request issued. Such a request would give the IESG and IETF Trust the opportunity to consider how much risk they wanted to assume to keep your documents posted and possibly to discuss that with the community. Sadly, they might consider the odds that you would actually choose to sue in their risk assessment (see below). I expect that might be what transpires here, but if we're in an organization that does that I would seriously reconsider writing future contributions. That wouldn't let you made document availability decisions by default for anyone else (e.g., by forcing opt-in), but would, IMO, focus the discussion in a way that increasingly heated comments on the IETF list would not. Sure, having the IETF step on authors' rights certainly focuses the discussion. I sincerely hope this organization understands its responsibility to the community better, and respects the rights of others in its action (not merely the cost of legal entanglements). ... And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court. Well, it would be determined by a court only if someone felt strongly enough about a particular document or set of documents to go to the expense of going down that path. Agreed; I'm only noting that this is all conjecture, not fact. ... If no one feels mean-tempered enough to launch such a court case, then the policy won't be settled by a judge, it will stand because no one challenges it. Perhaps. Perhaps those of us who feel the IETF is setting a bad example should just walk away. That solves the problem, right? Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/21/2012 1:45 PM, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order to do so. That said, the IESG firmly believes that the collection of I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Therefore, removal of a I-D from the Public I-D Archive should teated as a significant event. Comments from the community are solicited on the revised draft IESG statement. On behalf of the IESG, Russ --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF. I-Ds provide important historical records for the open and transparent operation of the IETF. Other individuals and groups, including the IAB and IRTF Research Groups, have chosen to distribute working documents as I-Ds. The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream also uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF? I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current I-Ds are stored in the I-D Repository. Second, current and past I-Ds are stored in a Public I-D Archive. While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time, They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the regular 6-month timeout. I-Ds generally remain in the Public I-D Archive to support easy comparison with previous versions. This availability facilitates review, comment, and revision. An entry in the I-D Repository is removed as part of normal process when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all of these situations, the I-D remains in the Public I-D Archive. The text up to this point mostly looks like a general set of policy assertions about I-Ds. Those need to exist separately as a formal policy statement about the series and its archive(s). That would leave the current statement to focus on its specific topic. An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with consensus of the IESG. There are two situations when the IESG will take this action. First, to comply with a duly authorized court order. Second, to resolve some form of abuse. This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel express comfort with this language? If possible, a removed I-D will be replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D was removed from the Public I-D Archive. When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy will be kept in a location accessible only by the IETF Leadership and the IETF Secretariat. This private location may be searched by the IETF Leadership or the IETF Secretariat when responding to appeals, responding to subpoenas, or otherwise handling to legal matters. Interesting. An archive archive. IETF leadership isn't a formal term. Who does it include/exclude? WG Chairs? Why? Why not? Over time, given the number of people who hold various IETF leadership positions, this effectively gives access to a very large fraction of the IETF community. If you are aware of abuse that warrants removal of an I-D from the Public I-D Archive, please write to the i...@ietf.org and explain the situation. At its discretion, the IESG may consult counsel or the IETF community before taking any action on such requests. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time, They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the regular 6-month timeout. Can't the author replace the repository version at any time AND can't that replacement effectively delete it by sending minimal boilerplate to pass any format testing.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/21/2012 6:41 PM, David Morris wrote: On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal at any time, They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the regular 6-month timeout. Can't the author replace the repository version at any time AND can't that replacement effectively delete it by sending minimal boilerplate to pass any format testing. Fair point. Except that 'replacing' seems a bit different than 'deleting'. While yes it deletes the old version, the effect of a replacement seems significantly different than is intended by the text (and the topic of the Subject line.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/19/2012 3:31 PM, John Levine wrote: In article 505a2b08.70...@isi.edu you write: On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote: Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author. We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here. I'm not. I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to the community. Could you answer the question, please? Are you saying that you are unaware, or do not believe that you have already given the IETF a permanent license for all of your I-Ds and all your other IETF contributions, which means it can publish them any way it wants whether you like it or not? I definitely have IDs that predate the new policies, and did not transfer rights to the IETF for those. This horse left the barn so long ago that the barn has long since been torn down and replaced by a parking lot. So could you answer this question - do you pirate DVDs too? That horse also left the barn, and presumably wild horses determine what you think is both legal and appropriate. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 23:38 +0200 Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: ... Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or one can be reasonably expected), the legal angle is simply irrelevant. (Just keeping the thread alive so it doesn't seem that everybody agrees with the strangely luddite position taken here.) Carsten, Without completely agreeing with Joe (I don't), let me suggest that the above may be the wrong way to look at this. First of all, the court decision impacting this... argument should be approached like any other risk-benefit analysis. If things were to get into a court and we were to lose, the consequences could be nasty indeed. While it is possible that a judge might say well, you were bad and shouldn't be doing this, but I won't punish you if you promise to clean up your act in the future, it isn't terribly likely. If things were to get to that point, prompted by a legal action by someone who could actually claim to have been damaged by the current policy, it is far more likely that the IETF would end up feeling significant pain, possibly accompanied by penalties severe enough to prevent us from keeping and getting the insurance on which we depend in the future. I personally don't consider it very likely that someone would actually sue or convince some appropriate prosecutor to come after us. But, however one assesses the likelihood of that happening and of that party winning, I think an attitude of don't worry about it until that happens and we lose would represent severely bad judgment. Perhaps more important from my point of view, the IETF depends on a social contract with its participants. For many years, participants had reason to believe that expire after six months meant that the IETF would not publicly facilitate, or directly provide public access to, expired I-Ds. They also had reason to believe that any rights they gave the IETF by posting a document as an I-D did not extend beyond the IETF especially after that six months -- that anyone else who wanted to make use of the material would have to come and discuss it with them. Whether that view was generally held or not is an almost meaningless question: I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of IETF participants, and even that of I-D authors, didn't give the issue a moment's thought. That same set of assumptions mostly applied even after that changes that led to the current BCP 78/79 language: the IETF Trust was granted (non-retroactively wrt earlier documents) the rights to do a number of things that the community might need, but there was no explicit assumption that all of those things _would_ be done unless the community necessity (not just convenience or wishes) were clear. Again, opinions differed about what was reasonable and appropriate in the normal case (an issue the IPR WG definitely did not reach a consensus conclusion about) and the evidence is (and was) that that vast majority of IETF participants still didn't care enough to pay attention. But that is precisely where the social contract becomes important. BCP 78 clearly gives the IETF the right to take a document you have written without asking you, remove your name from it, and publish it, possibly with modifications of which you might not approve, under someone else's name. That just doesn't happen, not because the written rules prohibit it (or because the IETF Trust is certain those provisions would hold up in court), but because there is general understanding that it would be in bad taste. Equally important, many of us would respond to such an action, at least one taken without a very good and clear reason, by deciding that the IETF is not a place where we care to do work any more. The contributions, at least from those thus offended, would stop. And, to the extent that those contributions, and the credibility of the contributors as a group, were important, the IETF would be in serious, perhaps fatal trouble. So, like you, I'm really not concerned whether Joe's arguments are on firm legal ground or not even though I completely reject the idea of let's keep doing it until court to which we have to pay attention tells us that we are wrong. But I am concerned that he and other authors of I-Ds, especially I-Ds that long predate RFC 5378, made good-faith assumption, based on practices at the time, about how their documents would be handled post-expiration. I think that, as a community, we ought to respect those assumptions more than saying, effectively, we are going to maintain a public archive no matter what commitments you thought were made to you because we can and because we don't think you will actually sue us. The latter is just bad for the community, whether it works or not. best, john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/19/2012 2:38 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to the community. Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm interested in. Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or one can be reasonably expected), the legal angle is simply irrelevant. (Just keeping the thread alive so it doesn't seem that everybody agrees with the strangely luddite position taken here.) Thanks for pressing the point. I'm trying to imagine anything useful coming from decision-making process that ignores utility. Accidents do occur, of course, but do we want the utility of an effort to be an accidental outcome? At the same time, the real-world imposes legal concerns whether we want them or not. The challenge, here, is to balance realistic concerns against realistic costs. It is as dangerous to pay too much attention to legal issues as it is too much. However... We are a public-interest organization, with open participation, automated issuing of I-Ds, and a policy of their permanent retention and availability. I'd expect an exceptional action to remove content from the permanent archive to create substantial legal exposure in many jurisdictions. Unfair bias and censoring of speech are two catch-phrases that occur to my non-lawyer brain. I can too-easily serious liabilities for a removal action deemed legally inappropriate. Worrying about that exposure only after the fact does not strike me as prudent. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Sep 20, 2012, at 18:49, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: I personally don't consider it very likely that someone would actually sue or convince some appropriate prosecutor to come after us. But, however one assesses the likelihood of that happening and of that party winning, I think an attitude of don't worry about it until that happens and we lose would represent severely bad judgment. It may be news for many people, but we all do things all day that might be considered illegal by someone. (The image of a law-abiding citizen is mostly romantics.) The question is whether there is an actual risk involved. When there isn't, and people still press the point, we call that a red herring. There is always a non-zero risk that some of our actions could by some jurisdiction maybe considered illegal. Whether that likelihood (and the potential damage) is bearable or not, is indeed a matter of judgement. Lawyers engage in assessing such a risk, and it is then usually a business (or personal life) decision whether you take the risk. In this specific case, however, let me just opine that anybody who sees a serious risk here doesn't seem to get out much otherwise. Perhaps more important from my point of view, [...] Now those are the interesting questions, indeed. Let's focus on what is useful, and what is right (not what can be considered legal or illegal using some contrived amateur lawyer thinking). The reality is that there is no harm coming to a submitter from the fact that the IETF is the 1001st place where expired drafts can be had. There simply is no downside to the IETF also archiving them and making the archive available for our purposes. The upside of doing this is that we maintain control, and that we can have tools operate on that archive that are useful to our work. That is the right thing to do. Now the one single thing that irks me, but I don't know how to solve: We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time had been expired for a year. The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be). Grüße, Carsten
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi Carsten, At 10:28 20-09-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote: We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time had been expired for a year. The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be). Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file to internet-drafts@. Regards, -sm
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote: ... It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned. Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't legitimize their theft. Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/18/12 11:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote: On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote: ... It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned. Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't legitimize their theft. Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author. Non-lawyer here... An authors rights are not entirely exclusive. e.g. 17 U.S.C 107 applies. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Joe Touch wrote: Lawrence Conroy wrote: It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned. Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't legitimize their theft. Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author. You're still seriously confusing things. An I-D contribution transfers perpetual (i.e. irrevocable) redistribution rights to the IETF -- at a minimum since rfc2026 (Oct 1996) and 1id-guidelines.txt pointing to rfc2026 section 10. For copyrighted contents, the perpetual, irrevocable transfer of specific rights is actually the norm, and an extraordinary, time-limited lease of rights would have to be negotiated and mutually agreed to in order to apply. (in German legalese the term is Erschöpfungsgrundsatz). The management of the online I-D repository and the expiration of documents in there has NOTHING whatsoever to do with that transfer of rights. Surely an author can decide to re-publish the I-D contents under different licenses somewhere else or later. But that does not impair the rights previously granted to the IETF in any way. What is necessary, however, for the transfer of rights according to rfc2026 section 10 to have happened, is that the I-D submitter was in posession of (or entitled to) grant/transfer these rights. Only when the I-D submitter did not have that rights when he submitted the document, would require the IETF to stop re-distribution the I-D when it became aware of this (and found itself unable to retroactively obtain the necessary rights from the rightful owner). -Martin
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author. We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here. You might want to review RFC 3978, section 3.3a, in which contributors make a: perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the Contribution: This is unrelated to how long I-D's stay in the public archive. If you're not willing to accept those terms including the perpetual and irrevocable part, you really shouldn't be submitting I-Ds or sending mail to IETF mailing lists. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote: Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author. We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here. I'm not. I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to the community. There are other arguments - that lawyers will make - that depend on the particular boilerplate used, when the ID was published, whether click-based copyright transfer holds up, and so forth. But utility doesn't drive the law. There are rights -rights of the author, and rights of the copyright holder - which are protected here, and they trump any perceived benefit to the community. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to the community. Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm interested in. Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or one can be reasonably expected), the legal angle is simply irrelevant. (Just keeping the thread alive so it doesn't seem that everybody agrees with the strangely luddite position taken here.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
In article 505a2b08.70...@isi.edu you write: On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote: Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author. We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here. I'm not. I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with because it's useful to the community. Could you answer the question, please? Are you saying that you are unaware, or do not believe that you have already given the IETF a permanent license for all of your I-Ds and all your other IETF contributions, which means it can publish them any way it wants whether you like it or not? This horse left the barn so long ago that the barn has long since been torn down and replaced by a parking lot. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi Scott, folks, with due deference to Joe Touch Bill Manning, whenever I have created/requested publication of an I-D, it never occurred to me that I was actually withdrawing the rights I had signed up to after six months (i.e., insisting on removal). That seems a novel reading of the boilerplate/2026. There were times people have had to refresh a draft before it disappeared (with precious few changes), just to keep them published. That always struck me as bonkers, and am roundly happy that/if expired drafts don't evaporate with the season. I can't be alone in this -- these docs may not be current, but having a trail of drafts NOT take up gigabytes on [some] people's hard drives is good. As for Scott's comments/efforts to have an expired-draft directory -- amen to that, for both reasons. (I hadn't realised that Steve had just about done this; good chap, who's sorely missed). It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned. It's also useful to be able to check when things were published relative to applications; having that information potentially go away was/is a nuisance. IMHO: If authors insist, OK -- the expired draft is toast (although it being replaced by a published note that it has been deleted would be good). Otherwise, why would/should the IESG decide to remove a document? ... which is a long way of saying: +1 all the best, Lawrence On 14 Sep 2012, at 16:21, Bradner, Scott wrote: I don't think that the Note Well note has much to do with what Joe started talking about we have had this discussion before quite a few years ago (pre tools) I suggested moving expired IDs to an expired IDs directory rather than removing them from the IETF public repository as well as posting all the old expired IDs in the same directory (changing only the filename to prepend expired-) seemed like a good idea to me to many other people, for the reasons people find the tools ID archive useful the IESG at the time said to move ahead Steve Coya started the (long) process f pulling the old IDs from backup tapes as he was finishing that process a new IESG was seated and the new IESG was not as in favor of the idea and wanted a fuller mailing list discussion (there had been a short discussion when I proposed the idea) there were a few people (Joe was one) that felt that IDs were published under the rights implied in rfc 2026, which said that IDs expired, and, thus, the IETF did to have the right to not remove them (there fact that other repositories existed did not change the IETF's rights in their opinion - in at least one case someone (I think Bill Manning) sent letters to some of those archives asking that their ID be removed) with support from the then IETF lawyer, I suggested that there be a way for a ID author to request that their ID be removed from the expired IDs directory but that idea did not carry the day and the expired IDs directory idea died then, at some later point, the tools function showed up - I do not think I was still on the IESG at that point so I do not know if the IESG discussed the question I think this is a very useful service (for history of how the technology evolved and for prior art searches in patent cases) and think that pretending that anything published on the Internet ever quite goes away is not realistic. Scott On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote: Hi Scott, folks, with due deference to Joe Touch Bill Manning, whenever I have created/requested publication of an I-D, it never occurred to me that I was actually withdrawing the rights I had signed up to after six months (i.e., insisting on removal). That seems a novel reading of the boilerplate/2026. There were times people have had to refresh a draft before it disappeared (with precious few changes), just to keep them published. That always struck me as bonkers, and am roundly happy that/if expired drafts don't evaporate with the season. I can't be alone in this -- these docs may not be current, but having a trail of drafts NOT take up gigabytes on [some] people's hard drives is good. As for Scott's comments/efforts to have an expired-draft directory -- amen to that, for both reasons. (I hadn't realised that Steve had just about done this; good chap, who's sorely missed). It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned. It's also useful to be able to check when things were published relative to applications; having that information potentially go away was/is a nuisance. IMHO: If authors insist, OK -- the expired draft is toast (although it being replaced by a published note that it has been deleted would be good). Otherwise, why would/should the IESG decide to remove a document? ... which is a long way of saying: +1 all the best, Lawrence On 14 Sep 2012, at 16:21, Bradner, Scott wrote: I don't think that the Note Well note has much to do with what Joe started talking about we have had this discussion before quite a few years ago (pre tools) I suggested moving expired IDs to an expired IDs directory rather than removing them from the IETF public repository as well as posting all the old expired IDs in the same directory (changing only the filename to prepend expired-) seemed like a good idea to me to many other people, for the reasons people find the tools ID archive useful the IESG at the time said to move ahead Steve Coya started the (long) process f pulling the old IDs from backup tapes as he was finishing that process a new IESG was seated and the new IESG was not as in favor of the idea and wanted a fuller mailing list discussion (there had been a short discussion when I proposed the idea) there were a few people (Joe was one) that felt that IDs were published under the rights implied in rfc 2026, which said that IDs expired, and, thus, the IETF did to have the right to not remove them (there fact that other repositories existed did not change the IETF's rights in their opinion - in at least one case someone (I think Bill Manning) sent letters to some of those archives asking that their ID be removed) with support from the then IETF lawyer, I suggested that there be a way for a ID author to request that their ID be removed from the expired IDs directory but that idea did not carry the day and the expired IDs directory idea died then, at some later point, the tools function showed up - I do not think I was still on the IESG at that point so I do not know if the IESG discussed the question I think this is a very useful service (for history of how the technology evolved and for prior art searches in patent cases) and think that pretending that anything published on the Internet ever quite goes away is not realistic. Scott The issue isnt whether the publications are available in an archive taking up space but whether the IP licensing rights to the content of that draft are persistent through a revision process or not. i.e. whether that right evaporates with the new publications then anyone implementing the protocol must also upgrade as well to stay in proper IP licensing state or it persists. Further if an IETF Draft is expired and there are support issues (from a contractual basis between parties who sold code implemented on those standards to a relying party) what happens to that contract? One of the things this group has done is to ignore the practices of the real-world and its time this was addressed. Code implemented from these publication standards is tied to the flow and protocol practices defined therein and its a real issue. Todd On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5270 - Release Date: 09/15/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/14/2012 7:38 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24:12AM -0700, tglassey wrote: For instance - how do you deal with an ID which was originally published under one set of IP rights and another later one - or a derivative work which is published under a separate set of rights - which functionally contravenes or sets aside those original rights authorizations? This is a serious issue. Indeed, it is, and if anybody would provide examples where we've had this problem, I would be standing in line to argue that indeed we need to make a policy and write stuff down. I want to clarify what you are asking for in this statement - what specifically would satisfy this request here? Todd Instead, the best anyone comes up with is (1) artificial examples of stuff that might happen someday maybe if someone does something wrong and (2) one-off cases that are incredibly tricky anyway. In response to (1), I say this is a problem we don't have. We have a poor track record with protocols for which there is no obvious immediate need (indeed, even when there's an obvious immediate need, we often screw it up). Why would policy be different? In response to (2), I say that hard cases make bad law. They're all going to be exceptions anyway. A -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 23:59 + John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: Censorship? Sheesh. ... As I think I've said several times before, if we think the IESG would start gratuitously deleting stuff, we have much worse problems than any policy statement could solve. +1 Exactly. The jump from what do we do with the range of seemingly-legitimate request from an outside party to remove a document from public view to if give flexibility, the IETF might use it to start removing (or censoring) documents they don't like seems incredible to me. john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote: I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are IPR issues related to making expired drafts available? Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of the boilerplate they contain. Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem? I don't ever recall a time when the grant of rights to the IETF had a time limit. They dont - and this is the problem. It means that there is no revision control in the license and NO ONE HAS TO USE OR IMPLEMENT ANY SPECIFIC SET OF SERVICES. It also means that there is no way to pull anything - even stolen or unauthorized materials once licensed. Todd R's, John - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5267 - Release Date: 09/13/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 9:23 PM, Joe Touch wrote: There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least. I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail. Joe On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote: I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are IPR issues related to making expired drafts available? Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of the boilerplate they contain. Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem? I don't ever recall a time when the grant of rights to the IETF had a time limit. For instance - how do you deal with an ID which was originally published under one set of IP rights and another later one - or a derivative work which is published under a separate set of rights - which functionally contravenes or sets aside those original rights authorizations? This is a serious issue. Todd R's, John - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5267 - Release Date: 09/13/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 10:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote: Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs. I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note wells, etc., and it's not as simple as it's the IETF's right to do anything except - maybe - going forward with a new copyright statement for IDs. Joe On 9/13/2012 10:10 PM, Martin Rex wrote: I think Joe is right here. What the real issue is is simply that you have no actual way of proving #7 and this process is so bad it fails to meet the basic IP Licensing Process Rules that *** ALL *** commercial and academic providers are tied to in the real world so this is more of the IETF's actions about its ability to create RIGHTS in a legal sense for anyone to anything it cannot formally prove it has legal power of attorney over. If you dont own it - granting a third part rights to something over an electronic transport is actually a criminal act AFAIK. Todd 10.3.1. All Contributions 7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and *free access to IETF documents for which license and right have *been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this *section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is *perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its *successors or assigns. So which specific part of including Internet-Drafts and RFCs and This warrent is perpetual caused your impression that there was a time-limit on an I-D contribution? -Martin btw. rfc2026 10.3.1 (2) looks like an explicit non-policy for dissemmination or termination of dissemination to me: 2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. I would be OK with a single person from (IESG member or IETF Chair) quickly decides about suspending dissemination of a document based on personal judgement and that the IESG wiggles out by themselves an informal procedure (rather than a formal policy) for safeguarding the process (from bias and abuse). This cuts into their time budget and seems to not be a concerningly frequent occurence to spend much polish on it at this point. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5267 - Release Date: 09/13/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24:12AM -0700, tglassey wrote: For instance - how do you deal with an ID which was originally published under one set of IP rights and another later one - or a derivative work which is published under a separate set of rights - which functionally contravenes or sets aside those original rights authorizations? This is a serious issue. Indeed, it is, and if anybody would provide examples where we've had this problem, I would be standing in line to argue that indeed we need to make a policy and write stuff down. Instead, the best anyone comes up with is (1) artificial examples of stuff that might happen someday maybe if someone does something wrong and (2) one-off cases that are incredibly tricky anyway. In response to (1), I say this is a problem we don't have. We have a poor track record with protocols for which there is no obvious immediate need (indeed, even when there's an obvious immediate need, we often screw it up). Why would policy be different? In response to (2), I say that hard cases make bad law. They're all going to be exceptions anyway. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I don't think that the Note Well note has much to do with what Joe started talking about we have had this discussion before quite a few years ago (pre tools) I suggested moving expired IDs to an expired IDs directory rather than removing them from the IETF public repository as well as posting all the old expired IDs in the same directory (changing only the filename to prepend expired-) seemed like a good idea to me to many other people, for the reasons people find the tools ID archive useful the IESG at the time said to move ahead Steve Coya started the (long) process f pulling the old IDs from backup tapes as he was finishing that process a new IESG was seated and the new IESG was not as in favor of the idea and wanted a fuller mailing list discussion (there had been a short discussion when I proposed the idea) there were a few people (Joe was one) that felt that IDs were published under the rights implied in rfc 2026, which said that IDs expired, and, thus, the IETF did to have the right to not remove them (there fact that other repositories existed did not change the IETF's rights in their opinion - in at least one case someone (I think Bill Manning) sent letters to some of those archives asking that their ID be removed) with support from the then IETF lawyer, I suggested that there be a way for a ID author to request that their ID be removed from the expired IDs directory but that idea did not carry the day and the expired IDs directory idea died then, at some later point, the tools function showed up - I do not think I was still on the IESG at that point so I do not know if the IESG discussed the question I think this is a very useful service (for history of how the technology evolved and for prior art searches in patent cases) and think that pretending that anything published on the Internet ever quite goes away is not realistic. Scott On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Joe Touch wrote: There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document will not be available *in the archive*. There's nothing that says it won't be available by Santa Claus delivery either. However, the document states how things will be made available, and how that will change upon expiration. While the 6-month timer (or any earlier I-D update!!) will, in fact, change how the *IETF* distributes and promotes a particular I-D (version), there is actually *NO* limitation in what folks downloading I-Ds with the URLs from the i-d-announce I-D Action: EMails do with any of the I-Ds that they download. When I startet mirroring I-Ds in 1995, I did so by processing the I-D announce Emails, rather than mirroring the IETF ftp server, because (a) I did want to retain old I-Ds of WG document that I was actively participating in, and I had no desire to obtain the tombstone files. Nobody is debating whether the IETF can/should have an archive. The question is whether that archive should be public - which effectively negates the concept of taking the doc out of the I-D repository. And I see you selectively omitted the rest of that paragraph: Such a request may be overridden; e.g., a chair of the working group associated with the I-D will be notified if an author requests unexpiration and may request that the action not occur. This request should be sent to internet-dra...@ietf.org (using the suggested subject line Resurrect I-D filename) and should come from an author, a working group chair, or an IESG member. This describes how _one_ very specific IETF document repository (of active I-Ds) is managed. I recognize the IETF might change this policy, but I want to be clear that I don't consider this is ambiguous to date. I *never* understood this to be any kind of polic, but rather a description of the current procedure, deliberatly chosen by the secretariat and server admin how to process and make available I-Ds for download. Since 1995, the location(favorite)protocol moved around a few times: ftp://ds.internic.net/ ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ http://www.ietf.org/id/ I never understood the submission of a successor I-D or creation of a tombstone I-D by the secretariat to imply un-publication or un-contribution of an earlier or expired I-D. Personally, I consider the possibility to diff arbitrary RFCs and I-D version from the past through the tools.ietf.org interface extremely useful. Similar to being able to browse IETF mailing list archives. Not being able to browse old IETF WG mailing list archives that have been hosted by other organizations is sometimes a problem. (there are many interesting discussions and information in the archives, many of which are still quite relevant today). If the IETF wants to put all old IDs on a public site, I consider that equivalent to unexpiration, and the authors must be given the right to opt-out. You're asking for an opt-out from Note Well here. I strongly object to such a change of IETF policy. Several I-Ds, and in particular abandoned/expired I-Ds were originally cometing proposals, and only one or a few of them was/were selected to become adopted/published as RFCs. That doesn't mean that the other proposals were useless, flawed or not being actively discussed on IETF mailing lists. Just the opposite. I-Ds are often regular parts of WG mailing list discussions, they're just managed/distributed in a fashion that differes from Mailing list archives. -Martin
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/12/2012 11:01 PM, Martin Rex wrote: While the 6-month timer (or any earlier I-D update!!) will, in fact, change how the*IETF* distributes and promotes a particular I-D (version), there is actually*NO* limitation in what folks downloading I-Ds with the URLs from the i-d-announce I-D Action: EMails do with any of the I-Ds that they download. At least one limitation is here: c. Pre-5378 Material. In some cases, IETF Contributions or IETF Documents may contain material from IETF Contributions or IETF Documents published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008 as to which the persons controlling the copyright in such material have not granted rights to the IETF Trust under the terms of RFC 5378 (“Pre-5378 Material”). If a Contributor includes the legend contained in Section 6.c.iii of these Legal Provisions on such IETF Contributions or IETF Documents containing Pre-5378 Materials, the IETF Trust agrees that it shall not grant any third party the right to use such Pre-5378 Material outside the IETF Standards Process unless and until it has obtained sufficient rights to do so from the persons controlling the copyright in such Pre-5378 Material. Where practical, Contributors are encouraged to identify which portions of such IETF Contributions and IETF Documents contain Pre-5378 Material, including the source (by RFC number or otherwise) of the Pre-5378 Material. Note that the standards process is defined in a way that includes archiving, but does not explicitly include publication: b. IETF Standards Process. The term IETF Standards Process has the meaning assigned to it in RFC 5378. In addition, the IETF Trust interprets the IETF Standards Process to include the archiving of IETF Documents in perpetuity for reference in support of IETF activities and the implementation of IETF standards and specifications. So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs published before Nov 10, 2008 since the copyright was not transferred to the ISOC/IETF or their Trustees. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 23:13 -0400 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: ... There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and the text you cite later goes on to talk about the tombstone file that replaced it in the repository, which we can easily see when we go to the datatracker entry for an expired I-D. And then the statement you cite further goes on to say this: An expired I-D may be unexpired when necessary to further the work ofthe IETF, including IETF liaison with other standards bodies. Suchaction will be taken by request of an IESG member, a chair of theworking group associated with the I-D, or one of the documentauthors. That *clearly* implies that it's not *gone*, else how could it be unexpired when necessary, by anyone's request? Barry, Without trying to figure out whether or not I agree with Joe, the key question has never been, IMO, whether or not the IETF has the right to _keep_ expired documents. Keeping them is clearly necessary to un-expire them, as you note, and has a number of other significant advantages and useful properties. As far as I know, a file of expired I-Ds have been maintained since I-Ds were introduced as a tool. But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval over the network by any interested party, with no requirement for a special request. It seems to me that it is only the latter that is of interest here and only the latter that is the subject of the proposed policy. Remove from public archive does not imply it is gone, forget it ever existed either, only making it inaccessible for retrieval except perhaps in response to other court orders or for other good causes that might be permitted. I don't have an opinion or intend to make any claim as to which this part of the discussion turned fishy, but the smell of red herring does not help advance discussions. john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval over the network by any interested party, with no requirement for a special request. It's interesting how this line of analysis entirely ignores pragmatics. It has been noted by a number of folk that public access has repeatedly been demonstrated to be... useful. That's why they were made accessible. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval over the network by any interested party, with no requirement for a special request. It's interesting how this line of analysis entirely ignores pragmatics. It has been noted by a number of folk that public access has repeatedly been demonstrated to be... useful. That's why they were made accessible. d/ PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public access, honoring pragmatics. Good luck with that line of reasoning. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 00:19 -0700 Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval over the network by any interested party, with no requirement for a special request. It's interesting how this line of analysis entirely ignores pragmatics. It has been noted by a number of folk that public access has repeatedly been demonstrated to be... useful. That's why they were made accessible. d/ PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public access, honoring pragmatics. Good luck with that line of reasoning. Let me try that a different way. Suppose someone were to propose that ISOC increase the subsidy to IETF sufficiently to drop all registration fees. That would certainly be useful. It would be useful to those who have to pay those fees out of their own pockets, increasing the costs of attendance and making it harder to attend. It would be useful to those who have to justify travel budgets and expenses. One might even suggest that it would be useful to everyone who wasn't interested in using the rising costs of IETF meetings to keep people out. It would perhaps be even more useful to offer a distance-based cash subsidy to anyone who has to travel more than, say, 3000 miles to an IETF meeting. That would not only be useful to individuals, but would be useful in balancing out the differential cost effects of meeting location choices and hence in improving geographical balance in meetings. Are there pragmatic reasons to not do either of these useful things? Sure there are. But they would definitely be pragmatically useful. The questions about the public archive aren't do people find this useful? but does the utility of having the archive public outweigh the costs and risks? And, if the answer to the second question is even only maybe, can we analyze the real needs and determine other ways to meet them, such as by keeping expired drafts available for a relatively short time after expiration rather than forever, with authors having an opt-out option?. best, john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Joe == Joe Touch to...@isi.edu writes: Joe On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote: Joe ... Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a good idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire gracefully. Joe +1 Joe Let's not forget there was a reason for expiration. Joe I'm OK with the archive being public so long as at least the Joe authors can remove an ID *without needing to provide a reason*. Joe Yes, removal from the IETF site will not expunge copies from Joe the entire Internet, but the IETF site should set the example Joe here, and respect the original intent of allowing an ID to Joe expire. I find myself in agreement with Joe here. I'm kind of horrified that this discussion is still going on. If I write that super-offensive porn in the form of an i-d that Scott warned about can we all find something else to mail about?:-)
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I find the archives very useful, especially when you have your own I-D history and contribution to WG works perhaps. It helps to show different views, the synergism, the competitive engineering views, the history, etc behind the final development of WG work. Whenever I do find a need to reference them in the eDiscussion, I will make sure I parenthetically note they are expired information. My input is limited due to legal reasons and try to keep with public domain technology exchanges and communications. I can understand if an expired I-D touches base with some level of IP that may be conflictive in the future, i.e. someone does a patent search/research and finds prior art in an expired I-D and it may be advantageous to them to have it removed from the archives. However, this is what the lawyers and courts are for. I'm sure the IETF/IESG archive keepers can also make judgment calls but I don't think it will be harmful to keep them around until it became a legal issue and like everything else, dealt on a case by case basis. I will say that I like to believe (maybe I am naive) the IETF/IESG does represents the community at large and I like to believe it represent even the Small Guys that really is not interested in the politics and battles. John C Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, September 13, 2012 00:19 -0700 Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval over the network by any interested party, with no requirement for a special request. It's interesting how this line of analysis entirely ignores pragmatics. It has been noted by a number of folk that public access has repeatedly been demonstrated to be... useful. That's why they were made accessible. d/ PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public access, honoring pragmatics. Good luck with that line of reasoning. Let me try that a different way. Suppose someone were to propose that ISOC increase the subsidy to IETF sufficiently to drop all registration fees. That would certainly be useful. It would be useful to those who have to pay those fees out of their own pockets, increasing the costs of attendance and making it harder to attend. It would be useful to those who have to justify travel budgets and expenses. One might even suggest that it would be useful to everyone who wasn't interested in using the rising costs of IETF meetings to keep people out. It would perhaps be even more useful to offer a distance-based cash subsidy to anyone who has to travel more than, say, 3000 miles to an IETF meeting. That would not only be useful to individuals, but would be useful in balancing out the differential cost effects of meeting location choices and hence in improving geographical balance in meetings. Are there pragmatic reasons to not do either of these useful things? Sure there are. But they would definitely be pragmatically useful. The questions about the public archive aren't do people find this useful? but does the utility of having the archive public outweigh the costs and risks? And, if the answer to the second question is even only maybe, can we analyze the real needs and determine other ways to meet them, such as by keeping expired drafts available for a relatively short time after expiration rather than forever, with authors having an opt-out option?. best, john -- HLS
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote: PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public access, honoring pragmatics. I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are IPR issues related to making expired drafts available? Melinda
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public access, honoring pragmatics. I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are IPR issues related to making expired drafts available? And since we've had a public archive of expired drafts for quite awhile, where have the purported problems been, that would justify this lengthy thread? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Joe, So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document author to arbitrary third parties here, but about rights that were given to the IETF (IETF contribution), and which have never been time-limited. So archival and making accessible I-D contributions past the expiration of an I-D is perfectly legal for the IETF, unless the I-D contains an explicit copyright notice to the contrary (most I-Ds from 199x do not seem to carry any copyright notice at all). Where you are _correct_ is, copypasting parts of such an old I-D or the whole document into new documents will in fact require contacting the original author(s)/copyright holder(s) and obtain permission, the Note Well provisions likely will not be sufficient, at least for those old I-Ds. (it is not just a matter of courtesy, but a requirement). I assume the latter is what rfc5378 is supposed to fix. -Martin
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I like the whole and +1 to it. I can see the pros and cons of make drafts actually go away but given it is impossible to get rid of a draft from the internet, all we end up with in the current situation are the cons and none of the pros. I do have one suggested change OLD An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance with a duly authorized court order. NEW The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive. We have better things to do than argue which courts we might accept court orders from or what a court order is so I suggest we just let the chair do the right thing. The chair will understand the goals of the IETF and have legal advice available to them. If the wrong thing happens, we can fix it after the fact by putting the ID back. On Sep 3, 2012, at 6:00 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are solicited. On behalf of the IESG, Russ --- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT --- SUBJECT: Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) are working documents of the IETF, its Areas, and its Working Groups. In addition, other groups, including the IAB and the IRTF Research Groups, distribute working documents as I-Ds. I-Ds are stored in two places on the IETF web site. First, current ones are stored in the I-D directory. Second, current and past ones are stored in a public I-D archive. I-Ds are readily available to a wide audience from the IETF I-D directory. This availability facilitates informal review, comment, and revision. While entries in the I-D directory are subject to change or removal at any time, I-Ds generally remain publicly archived to support easy comparison with previous versions. Entries in the I-D directory are removed as part of normal process when it expires after six months, when it is replaced by a subsequent I-D, or when it is replaced by the publication of an RFC. In all of these situations, the I-D remains in the public I-D archive. An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance with a duly authorized court order. If possible, a removed I-D will be replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D was removed from the public I-D archive.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 2:35 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: OLD An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance with a duly authorized court order. NEW The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive. This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair. Is that really what we (and the Chair) want? Given possible legal implications of claimed unfair treatment of a document, that's pretty onerous exposure for the Chair. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive. This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair. Is that really what we (and the Chair) want? I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of a board, but not giving it to an individual. Barry
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive. This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair. Is that really what we (and the Chair) want? I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of a board, but not giving it to an individual. Not that you've said something to exclude this, but I want to make sure we don't lose the second part: I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by legal counsel. Even with a group -- versus individual -- we should not create possible charges of censorship up to the personal whims of the moment. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Dave, On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by legal counsel. I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that we should NOT have a written policy. Deal with this on a case-by-case basis seems the most efficient way until we hear that the IESG spends more time arguing on a particular case than the IETF community does on a written policy. David Kessens ---
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
David, On 9/13/2012 3:25 PM, David Kessens wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by legal counsel. I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that we should NOT have a written policy. It shows a tendency of the active IETF discussants to resist doing the work of settling on policy for the IETF. That's quite different from demonstrating a lack of /need/. Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship by a public group such as ourselves. In other words, I saw the /actual/ implication of the thread as making it crystal clear that we do /not/ want a collection of amateurs formulating ad hoc censorship policies on the fly. (Forgive me for underscoring this, but I think the original policy draft that was floated to the community was a good demonstration of this danger. Although I happened to like the details of what was floated, the fact that it had not been reviewed by counsel prior to being made public is quite troubling.) Deal with this on a case-by-case basis seems the most efficient way until we hear that the IESG spends more time arguing on a particular case than the IETF community does on a written policy. For an organization in the business of writing global standards, we are remarkably resistant to doing the thoughtful and deliberate policy work of writing standards for ourselves. Instead we tend to prefer the whimsy of personal adhoc-racy, with its typical dangers of inconsistency and incompleteness. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Dave, On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship by a public group such as ourselves. Aren't you going a little overboard in hyperbole here ? David Kessens ---
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 3:54 PM, David Kessens wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship by a public group such as ourselves. Aren't you going a little overboard in hyperbole here ? you mean by claiming the discussion was enlightened? the rest was offered as an observation and reporting of what I believe to fact, in factual language. if you see hyperbole in any of it, please explain. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 15:10 -0700 Dave Crocker dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote: On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive. This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair. Is that really what we (and the Chair) want? I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of a board, but not giving it to an individual. Not that you've said something to exclude this, but I want to make sure we don't lose the second part: I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by legal counsel. Even with a group -- versus individual -- we should not create possible charges of censorship up to the personal whims of the moment. I'm not sure, Dave. I see the theoretical risk, but the number of times that problem has occurred in the past is, I believe, zero. I'd be more concerned about it if we were talking about removing active documents rather than taking something out of the publicly-available archive of expired documents. And a decision by the IESG to remove a document would presumably be, like all other IESG decisions, subject to appeal. If the IESG started taking down documents just because they didn't like them, I'd also think we'd quickly try out the recall procedure for the first time. But, again, the IESG has had many years of experience with I-Ds they don't like (and many such documents), during most of which time no one questioned their ability to remove a document from public view (active or archived) and, AFAIK, we have seen absolutely no abuse of that type. I'd be ok with a written policy that has been reviewed by legal counsel if I thought there were even reasonable odds of its adequately covering all the cases. But I fear that such a policy would exclude some important case and thereby get the IESG in trouble as we tried to work with (or work around, or revise on an emergency basis) a policy that turned out to prevent us (or even the IESG or IETF Trust) from exercising good sense and doing what is either obviously right or as advised by Counsel when Counsel is presented by a particular situation. Proposal: I think it would be fine to have a policy in which: (1) A document would be taken down as quickly as possible in response to a legitimate court order with approval of Counsel. (2) A document to which, in the opinion of Counsel, the IETF might not have clear copyright title, and for which a DCMA take-down notice or equivalent was received unless the IESG, with advice and consent of Counsel, advised against such a takedown. (3) The IESG could take anything else down for cause at its discretion after: (3.1) Seeking and receiving advice of Counsel (3.2) Announcing intention to do so, and the cause, on the IETF-announce list and allowing a brief period for objections. (3.3) Considering any advice and objections before making a final decision. (3.4) Subject to the above, the IESG is encouraged to look with favor on requests to remove already- expired documents from the public archive from the party responsible for the document (authors of individual drafts; WGs for WG drafts). We recognize that such removal doesn't cause the documents to disappear from the Internet, but responsible parties making such requests about their own documents presumably have reasons that we should treat respectfully. (4) Any of those actions would be subject to appeal if members of the community felt there were important issues that had not been considered. An appeal could request that the advice from Counsel be made available to the community. The IESG would be required to either comply with that request or explain why not. I don't like it --my personal position is much closer to Joe's or Sam's-- but, if there is consensus that we have to have a written policy, one like the above at least doesn't tie our hands when a situation arises that we haven't anticipated. While there is some possibility of DoS attacks embedded in it, it remains important that we haven't seen huge numbers of these requests (or even small numbers). Indeed, one of my fears about the amount of discussion we've had (and any formal policy at this point) is that it may encourage such requests. Too late to worry about that now. best, john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of a board, but not giving it to an individual. So give it to the IESG and we can stop arguing about it. I have to say, the urge to post a few I-D's consisting of snuff porn is nearly irresistible. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by legal counsel. Even with a group -- versus individual -- we should not create possible charges of censorship up to the personal whims of the moment. Censorship? Sheesh. The IETF is not the government. We have no obligation to anyone to publish anything, nor can we keep anyone from publishing anything on the 99.9% of the Internet that the IETF does not control. As I think I've said several times before, if we think the IESG would start gratuitously deleting stuff, we have much worse problems than any policy statement could solve. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
It shows a tendency of the active IETF discussants to resist doing the work of settling on policy for the IETF. That's quite different from demonstrating a lack of /need/. The IETF has been around for 26 years, and has had, I gather, zero removal requests to date. If that doesn't demonstrate lack of need, what would? R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 12:28 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Joe, So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document author to arbitrary third parties here, but about rights that were given to the IETF (IETF contribution), and which have never been time-limited. The expires term and corresponding entire text of the ID submissions guidelines suggest otherwise. So archival and making accessible I-D contributions past the expiration of an I-D is perfectly legal for the IETF, unless the I-D contains an explicit copyright notice to the contrary (most I-Ds from 199x do not seem to carry any copyright notice at all). I've already pointed out text that, e.g., someone might use to make the case to the contrary. Finally, in the US, lawyer isn't who would decide this; a jury would. Where you are _correct_ is, copypasting parts of such an old I-D or the whole document into new documents will in fact require contacting the original author(s)/copyright holder(s) and obtain permission, the Note Well provisions likely will not be sufficient, at least for those old I-Ds. (it is not just a matter of courtesy, but a requirement). I assume the latter is what rfc5378 is supposed to fix. There are several variants of issues that apply, at least three I recall: pre 1994 1994-2008 2008-now This isn't the first time this issue has been discussed on this list. RFC 5378 is intended to address reuse of material, as you suggest - not whether that material can be publicly posted. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/13/2012 11:04 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote: PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public access, honoring pragmatics. I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are IPR issues related to making expired drafts available? Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of the boilerplate they contain. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are IPR issues related to making expired drafts available? Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of the boilerplate they contain. Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem? I don't ever recall a time when the grant of rights to the IETF had a time limit. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least. I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail. Joe On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote: I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are IPR issues related to making expired drafts available? Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of the boilerplate they contain. Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem? I don't ever recall a time when the grant of rights to the IETF had a time limit. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Joe Touch wrote: There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least. I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail. In which case the Note Well concludently applies to the I-D contents, which seems to have first appeared on www.ietf.org around 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20010413091132/http://ietf.org/overview.html and slightly extended in 2002: http://web.archive.org/web/20020605140239/http://ietf.org/overview.html primarily refering to the IETF process described in rfc2026 section 10: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-10 10.2, 10.3, 10.3.1 (2), 10.3.1 (5), 10.3.1 (7) 10.3.1. All Contributions 7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and *free access to IETF documents for which license and right have *been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this *section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is *perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its *successors or assigns. So which specific part of including Internet-Drafts and RFCs and This warrent is perpetual caused your impression that there was a time-limit on an I-D contribution? -Martin btw. rfc2026 10.3.1 (2) looks like an explicit non-policy for dissemmination or termination of dissemination to me: 2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. I would be OK with a single person from (IESG member or IETF Chair) quickly decides about suspending dissemination of a document based on personal judgement and that the IESG wiggles out by themselves an informal procedure (rather than a formal policy) for safeguarding the process (from bias and abuse). This cuts into their time budget and seems to not be a concerningly frequent occurence to spend much polish on it at this point.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs. I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note wells, etc., and it's not as simple as it's the IETF's right to do anything except - maybe - going forward with a new copyright statement for IDs. Joe On 9/13/2012 10:10 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Joe Touch wrote: There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least. I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail. In which case the Note Well concludently applies to the I-D contents, which seems to have first appeared on www.ietf.org around 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20010413091132/http://ietf.org/overview.html and slightly extended in 2002: http://web.archive.org/web/20020605140239/http://ietf.org/overview.html primarily refering to the IETF process described in rfc2026 section 10: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-10 10.2, 10.3, 10.3.1 (2), 10.3.1 (5), 10.3.1 (7) 10.3.1. All Contributions 7. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. By ratifying this description of the IETF process the Internet Society warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and *free access to IETF documents for which license and right have *been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this *section, including Internet-Drafts and RFCs. This warrant is *perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its *successors or assigns. So which specific part of including Internet-Drafts and RFCs and This warrent is perpetual caused your impression that there was a time-limit on an I-D contribution? -Martin btw. rfc2026 10.3.1 (2) looks like an explicit non-policy for dissemmination or termination of dissemination to me: 2. The contributor acknowledges that the ISOC and IETF have no duty to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution. I would be OK with a single person from (IESG member or IETF Chair) quickly decides about suspending dissemination of a document based on personal judgement and that the IESG wiggles out by themselves an informal procedure (rather than a formal policy) for safeguarding the process (from bias and abuse). This cuts into their time budget and seems to not be a concerningly frequent occurence to spend much polish on it at this point.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Barry Leiba wrote: This raises the question of what expires means. At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then expires is no longer meaningful and the entirety of that notion needs to be expunged from the ID process. You seem to think it means something like expunged from the record, and no longer available for viewing. I think it means no longer current for the purposes of work and discussion. I fully agree to the latter. Expunging I-Ds that are older than 6 months looks like a silly idea to me. Nothing in Note Well indicates that an IETF contribution that is not published as RFC or regurgitated as a successor I-D will be automatically un-contributed from the IETF. Actually, to me the Note Well says just the opposite. There are numerous I-Ds that are idle for 6 month (even WG documents) and there are also numerous abandoned I-Ds (WG documents and individual submissions). I consider it perfectly reasonable to keep them as easily accessible as IETF mailing list archives to the community so that any existing contribution can be easily found and reused whenever anyone feels like it. I consider it a matter of self-evident courtesy to contact the original author(s) before submitting a new I-D that incorporates elses I-D (or RFC), independent of whether that document is active(I-D)/published(RFC) or expired(I-D). An expired or abandoned individual I-D might be an indicator that the author(s) did not have the time/energy/endurance to carry it through to RFC, not necessarily that the document (or technology described by it) is not mature or does not exist. I expect that a number of expired I-Ds describes an installed base that is alive and kicking. -Martin
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/12/2012 5:59 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Barry Leiba wrote: This raises the question of what expires means. At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then expires is no longer meaningful and the entirety of that notion needs to be expunged from the ID process. You seem to think it means something like expunged from the record, and no longer available for viewing. I think it means no longer current for the purposes of work and discussion. I fully agree to the latter. Expunging I-Ds that are older than 6 months looks like a silly idea to me. Nothing in Note Well indicates that an IETF contribution that is not published as RFC or regurgitated as a successor I-D will be automatically un-contributed from the IETF. Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines (written by the IESG): http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt 8. Expiring An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days from the date that it is posted on the IETF Web site (http://www.ietf.org/id-info/) unless it is replaced by an updated version (in which case the clock will start all over again for the new version, and the old version will be removed from the I-D repository), or unless it is under official review by the IESG (i.e., a request to publish it as an RFC has been submitted)... I.e., this is not a matter of interpretation. If you want to change the rules, then it cannot apply to past IDs unless authors give explicit permission, because the IETF would be changing the terms of this statement. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
I think it means no longer current for the purposes of work and discussion. Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines (written by the IESG): http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt 8. Expiring An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days from the date that it is posted on the IETF Web site (http://www.ietf.org/id-info/) unless it is replaced by an updated version (in which case the clock will start all over again for the new version, and the old version will be removed from the I-D repository), or unless it is under official review by the IESG (i.e., a request to publish it as an RFC has been submitted)... I.e., this is not a matter of interpretation. 'tis, apparently, because you are still interpreting it differently to how I am. There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and the text you cite later goes on to talk about the tombstone file that replaced it in the repository, which we can easily see when we go to the datatracker entry for an expired I-D. And then the statement you cite further goes on to say this: An expired I-D may be unexpired when necessary to further the work of the IETF, including IETF liaison with other standards bodies. Such action will be taken by request of an IESG member, a chair of the working group associated with the I-D, or one of the document authors. That *clearly* implies that it's not *gone*, else how could it be unexpired when necessary, by anyone's request? I'll also note, Joe, that you are the *only* one arguing this point. Does anyone agree with Joe? If not, it seems fair to say that it looks like you're well in the rough here. Barry
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi, Barry, On 9/12/2012 8:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: I think it means no longer current for the purposes of work and discussion. Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines (written by the IESG): http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt 8. Expiring An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days from the date that it is posted on the IETF Web site (http://www.ietf.org/id-info/) unless it is replaced by an updated version (in which case the clock will start all over again for the new version, and the old version will be removed from the I-D repository), or unless it is under official review by the IESG (i.e., a request to publish it as an RFC has been submitted)... I.e., this is not a matter of interpretation. 'tis, apparently, because you are still interpreting it differently to how I am. There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document will not be available *in the archive*. There's nothing that says it won't be available by Santa Claus delivery either. However, the document states how things will be made available, and how that will change upon expiration. And then the statement you cite further goes on to say this: An expired I-D may be unexpired when necessary to further the work of the IETF, including IETF liaison with other standards bodies. Such action will be taken by request of an IESG member, a chair of the working group associated with the I-D, or one of the document authors. That *clearly* implies that it's not *gone*, else how could it be unexpired when necessary, by anyone's request? Nobody is debating whether the IETF can/should have an archive. The question is whether that archive should be public - which effectively negates the concept of taking the doc out of the I-D repository. And I see you selectively omitted the rest of that paragraph: Such a request may be overridden; e.g., a chair of the working group associated with the I-D will be notified if an author requests unexpiration and may request that the action not occur. This request should be sent to internet-dra...@ietf.org (using the suggested subject line Resurrect I-D filename) and should come from an author, a working group chair, or an IESG member. I recognize the IETF might change this policy, but I want to be clear that I don't consider this is ambiguous to date. If the IETF wants to put all old IDs on a public site, I consider that equivalent to unexpiration, and the authors must be given the right to opt-out. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
--On Monday, September 10, 2012 15:07 -0400 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:29AM -0700, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open organization we do not remove information once posted, except under extraordinary circumstances. Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed I attempted to hint at it already in this thread, but frankly, this sort of thing is why a policy _is not_ needed. The IESG has that discretion already, and I would prefer to trust their judgement than to write a policy governing all future action, thereby running the risk that we'll have overlooked something and having a resulting problem with policies down the road. Or, to be more specific, that we will encounter a situation that no one quite anticipated, know perfectly well what the rational and appropriate action is, and find that we can't take it because we established policies that tied our hands. I do not understand this nearly constitutional obsession with writing down policies for everything we do and don't do. It turns us into a bureaucratic process slaves for no benefit I can see. I've said this before, but one of the things that used to distinguish the IETF from other standards bodies is that we operated with good sense and leadership discretion as our guides, spending as little time as possible on the specification and adoption of rigid procedures. We believed and behaved as if IESG and IAB positions could be filled on a part-time basis, needing people to dedicate a day or two a week from their regular jobs, not require that they devote full-time to those positions and do the rest of their jobs (if any) in their spare time. When someone showed up and said I don't really know anything about the Internet and almost nothing about engineering; I'm just a procedures guy and I wasn't to help, we would help him understand that he was in the wrong place. We might have responded to claims that more procedures make things easier in cases like this by noting that handling the actual number of take-down requests a year on a case-by-case basis would take years to reach the break-even point with the number of IESG hours that have presumably been spent following this long (and predictable) thread, much less the costs to the community of participating in it. We might also have suggested the possibility of the IESG delegating the work to some other group or committee -- if there are ever so many requests that the IESG would find the time it takes to evaluate them burdensome, we might be happy with a small committee (volunteer, IESG-designated, chosen at random, or a combination and ideally including Counsel) and subject to appeal on the basis that what can be taken down can be put up again). Clearly the IETF has changed. My colleagues at ANSI, INCITS, and JTC1 would have claimed that it was inevitable with growth (and maybe with age). And maybe I'm just old and nostalgic. But I suggest that, if we need rigid procedures like this, the debates it takes to get to them, and to the full-time standardizer leadership to which history should teach us that they ultimately lead, we probably have the wrong organizational and decision-making structures and need to look forward to structural reforms that will make the post-Kobe ones of the early 1990s look like a minor adjustment. Or we can voluntarily turn the trend around, one step at a time, starting with rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion, flexibility, and intelligence (and definitely not a statement/ policy of even more complexity) and maybe even including do we really have resources for this among the criteria used to evaluate the creation or continuation of WGs. best, john
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Or we can voluntarily turn the trend around, one step at a time, starting with rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion, flexibility, and intelligence (and definitely not a statement/ policy of even more complexity) and maybe even including do we really have resources for this among the criteria used to evaluate the creation or continuation of WGs. +1 If the IESG doesn't have the native intelligence to figure out how to deal with a removal request based on the facts of the specific request, we have a problem no set of rules can solve. (Personally, I don't think we have that problem.) It might be useful to ask Jorge to prepare a note about dealing with DMCA notices which are not court orders, but do require a response. Or since the DMCA has been in effect for 14 years and we have yet to get the first notice, we could save time and money drop the topic unless and until the issue arises. There are a whole lot of hypothetical threats that the IETF might have to deal with someday, or not. Life is not long enough to make plans for all of them. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Sep 11, 2012, at 15:10, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion, I'm not privy to the circumstances that caused the original proposal to come up. Maybe the reason was that the IESG *wants* its hands bound so there is no further need to waste time on such decisions (e.g., because the policy discourages or can be used to discourage requests of this kind in the first place). But this is all speculation without further background. And I'm not that interested in the subject anyway. (I *am* interested we don't use it as an excuse to break the I-D archive.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Hi John, On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote: Let's say I write to the IESG and say this: Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a few days. Thanks for your consideration. Is this the response? You didn't make any legal threats, and now that we know the situation, we wouldn't believe any legal threats you might make in the future, so you better check out those burger flipping opportunities. No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open organization we do not remove information once posted, except under extraordinary circumstances. What was wrong with the original version which gave the IESG the latitude to remove an I-D if they feel, for whatever reason, that it would be a good idea to do so? What original? The draft policy states: An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance with a duly authorized court order. If the IESG were so screwed up that they started deleting I-Ds for bad reasons, no amount of process verbiage would help. Certainly, but let's not start from the wrong place to begin with. Let's also set expectations that the IESG may be used to clean up after other peoples' messes. They have enough to do. And again, this is best developed with counsel. Regards, Eliot
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Sep 8, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: On 9/8/2012 11:59 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/8/12 10:51 AM, Joe Touch wrote: Nothing about an ID is inherently obsolete or out of date after 6 months except its being publicly available on authorized sites (up until now). I think this is absolutely incorrect. Internet Drafts are IETF documents, and expiration changes the relationship between the draft and the IETF. I have to say that I think it's terribly unprofessional not to hang onto archival material Draft != archival Or do you keep copies of all versions of papers you publish, including the ones submitted for review? In case lawyers might need it, or for the benefit of the public? and frankly it's in the interest of the IETF as an *open* standards organization to keep archival material accessible. Agreed. When you're working on a problem that's been around forever and still hasn't been solved (like, oh, I dunno - firewall/NAT traversal?), easy access to expired drafts is an enormous help. The needs of the community - including the lawyers - do not outweigh the rights of the author or the agreement they make with the IETF to date. The original point of having drafts expire seems to have been forgotten here. That's a pity. It did have a reason, and it was useful. The original reason for expiring drafts, along with giving them long, complicated names that includes the word draft, was to keep them from being referenced as if they were standards, based on experience gathered from the short lived IDEA document series. I don't think that having an archive of expired drafts weakens that original goal. -David Borman Would you be more comfortable if there were some sort of visual flag that a draft had expired? If you post it, it's not expired. There's no point in claiming otherwise. Joe -- The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum. Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, including email and attachments, sent across its networks filtered through anti virus and spam software programs and retain such messages in order to comply with applicable data security and retention requirements. Quantum is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote: Let's say I write to the IESG and say this: Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a few days. Thanks for your consideration. Is this the response? You didn't make any legal threats, and now that we know the situation, we wouldn't believe any legal threats you might make in the future, so you better check out those burger flipping opportunities. No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open organization we do not remove information once posted, except under extraordinary circumstances. Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed, although I note in passing that the folks at this hypothetical might want to read up on the Streisand Effect. What was wrong with the original version which gave the IESG the latitude to remove an I-D if they feel, for whatever reason, that it would be a good idea to do so? What original? The draft policy states: An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance with a duly authorized court order. If the IESG were so screwed up that they started deleting I-Ds for bad reasons, no amount of process verbiage would help. Certainly, but let's not start from the wrong place to begin with. Let's also set expectations that the IESG may be used to clean up after other peoples' messes. They have enough to do. That is if anything an understatement. And again, this is best developed with counsel. A very emphatic +1 to this. Ned
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this: Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a few days. Thanks for your consideration. Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed, although I note in passing that the folks at this hypothetical might want to read up on the Streisand Effect. Note that I phrased it as a polite request, not a threat. And again, this is best developed with counsel. A very emphatic +1 to this. Sure, but keep in mind that it's one thing to minimize legal risk, is not the same as minimizing cost or complexity, or doing what's best for the IETF and the community. Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:29AM -0700, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open organization we do not remove information once posted, except under extraordinary circumstances. Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed I attempted to hint at it already in this thread, but frankly, this sort of thing is why a policy _is not_ needed. The IESG has that discretion already, and I would prefer to trust their judgement than to write a policy governing all future action, thereby running the risk that we'll have overlooked something and having a resulting problem with policies down the road. I do not understand this nearly constitutional obsession with writing down policies for everything we do and don't do. It turns us into a bureaucratic process slaves for no benefit I can see. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this: Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a few days. Thanks for your consideration. Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy is needed, although I note in passing that the folks at this hypothetical might want to read up on the Streisand Effect. Note that I phrased it as a polite request, not a threat. I don't see that as especially relevant: There have been plenty of cases where a polite request called attention to something that would otherwise have been ignored, although of course the ones that get reported at http://www.thestreisandeffect.com/ tend to be the ones where bad behavior was involved. And again, this is best developed with counsel. A very emphatic +1 to this. Sure, but keep in mind that it's one thing to minimize legal risk, is not the same as minimizing cost or complexity, or doing what's best for the IETF and the community. The narrow goal of minimizing the immediate legal risk is hardly the only, or even an especially good, reason to seek advice of counsel. Counsel is there to assist you in understanding the legal implications of your possible choices and then in implementing the choice you make. They are not there to make your decisions for you. Ned
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/10/2012 8:24 AM, David Borman wrote: ... The original reason for expiring drafts, along with giving them long, complicated names that includes the word draft, was to keep them from being referenced as if they were standards, based on experience gathered from the short lived IDEA document series. It was also to encourage authors to post half-baked* ideas without having them persist - either as standards, or in general as something the author needed to continue to defend. I don't think that having an archive of expired drafts weakens that original goal. It weakens both goals. A key complaint has been that the doc disappears from an IETF site. Neither the length nor the name has been an impediment Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Note - I don't agree that past IDs should be posted after expiration without the author's consent. They were submitted with that understanding, and post-facto changing it by the IETF is not appropriate. I would rephrase the above as whether it is appropriate to take someone's work and post it as your own or use the work. For the former, I don't think it is appropriate. For the latter, the author has given the IETF change control over the work. I'll ignore the exceptions. That does not mean that the author should not be credited for the work. If I am not mistaken it is IETF practice to do so. Actually regarding reusing the former drafts we have been discussing this in 2008 at depth when one draft reused most of the text of another draft. The end result was that technically and legally it is appropriate. Reference section 3.3 of BCP78 / RFC5378. However while the above documents do not mandate it I very much agree that it is in good taste to first ping the original authors about your intentions to extend and build on top of their idea. R.
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
NEW: An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance with a competent legal demand. If possible, a removed I-D will be replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that the I-D was removed from the public I-D archive. This leaves sufficient flexibility for the IESG to decide when a legal demand requires the removal and when it's bogus, but otherwise leaves the bar high. I would suggest that Jorge review the above text for appropriateness. Let's say I write to the IESG and say this: Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even though he realizes that third parties may have made copies of it in the meantime. I will probably lose my job if it stays up for more than a few days. Thanks for your consideration. Is this the response? You didn't make any legal threats, and now that we know the situation, we wouldn't believe any legal threats you might make in the future, so you better check out those burger flipping opportunities. What was wrong with the original version which gave the IESG the latitude to remove an I-D if they feel, for whatever reason, that it would be a good idea to do so? If the IESG were so screwed up that they started deleting I-Ds for bad reasons, no amount of process verbiage would help. R's, John
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Joe, On 08/09/2012 04:58, Joe Touch wrote: On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: ... And I think those are very different things. The fact that expired drafts used to not be available for public viewing on the IETF site does not, by itself, mean that that was or is the intent of expiration. That is exact what it meant. Or are you claiming that it was a coincidence that this entire time that derafts were removed in sync with that expiry? It may be what some people thought it meant, or wished it meant. And yes, it was intentional that you wouldn't find them in the *active* drafts directory after expiry. The factual reality is that I-D's have always been more or less perpetual, given that anonymous FTP has existed longer than any I-D. Admittedly the record is spotty for drafts earlier that about 1995, when HTTP became a major factor (but I suspect you could find them with gopher etc before HTTP). The difference today is that we are sort-of admitting officially that obsolete drafts can be found, and that this is useful. The word expired is perhaps not ideal; obsolete or out of date would perhaps be more precise, but it's probably too late to change it now. Brian
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
Keeping I-D's around forever is incredibly important form a historical, technical, and legal perspective. They people understand how we work, think, and develop protocols (history). They help people what was tried and did or did not succeed (technology). And they provide a record of the state of the art at a particular point in time (legal). -- Sent from a mobile device. Sorry for typos or weird auto-correct. Thank IETF LEMONADE for mobile email! See http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/ On Sep 8, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Joe, On 08/09/2012 04:58, Joe Touch wrote: On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: ... And I think those are very different things. The fact that expired drafts used to not be available for public viewing on the IETF site does not, by itself, mean that that was or is the intent of expiration. That is exact what it meant. Or are you claiming that it was a coincidence that this entire time that derafts were removed in sync with that expiry? It may be what some people thought it meant, or wished it meant. And yes, it was intentional that you wouldn't find them in the *active* drafts directory after expiry. The factual reality is that I-D's have always been more or less perpetual, given that anonymous FTP has existed longer than any I-D. Admittedly the record is spotty for drafts earlier that about 1995, when HTTP became a major factor (but I suspect you could find them with gopher etc before HTTP). The difference today is that we are sort-of admitting officially that obsolete drafts can be found, and that this is useful. The word expired is perhaps not ideal; obsolete or out of date would perhaps be more precise, but it's probably too late to change it now. Brian
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On Sep 8, 2012, at 13:02, Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.com wrote: Keeping I-D's around forever is incredibly important form a historical, technical, and legal perspective. They people understand how we work, think, and develop protocols (history). They help people what was tried and did or did not succeed (technology). And they provide a record of the state of the art at a particular point in time (legal). +1. I have used rfcdiff with drafts from the 90s, and that was very useful. I wonder why some people think expired means purged from the face of the earth. Let's see: expire |ɪkˈspaɪ(ə)r| verb 1 [ no obj. ] (of a document, authorization, or agreement) cease to be valid, typically after a fixed period of time: the old contract had expired. See, I have this expired passport in front of me, and it is every bit as accessible to me as it was when it still was valid. I can pull it out of the drawer as much as I want, show it to my friends, etc. It is just expired. And there is no confusion whatsoever about that fact: It actually says so on page 3. Now about removing I-Ds from public view: This has no bearing whatsoever on how we express expiration. Drafts may need to be removed from view when they aren't expired yet. So there is no need to discuss expiration under this headline. Back to the actual subject: I believe the policy should be, exactly in these words: Internet-Drafts will be removed from the archives only when this is really, really, necessary. The determination whether this is really, really, necessary lies with the IESG. The usual appeals process applies. Grüße, Carsten
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/7/12 7:58 PM, Joe Touch wrote: What can that mean if it remains available to the public? What purpose does such an automatic timeout have if it is left up? IMO, none. It seems to me that the timeout takes the draft out of consideration. If someone wants to have a discussion about it, it needs to be revised. I've looked at old drafts for background material for current work. They're useful. Melinda
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/8/2012 1:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... The factual reality is that I-D's have always been more or less perpetual, given that anonymous FTP has existed longer than any I-D. It has always been the case that some sites have violated the copyright and explicit instructions of IDs. The difference today is that we are sort-of admitting officially that obsolete drafts can be found, and that this is useful. Admitting that there is piracy is not the same as the IETF posting them publicly on their site. The word expired is perhaps not ideal; obsolete or out of date would perhaps be more precise, but it's probably too late to change it now. Nothing about an ID is inherently obsolete or out of date after 6 months except its being publicly available on authorized sites (up until now). If we remove that rule, then the notion of expiration is outdated. If it's not too late to change the they are removed from the IESG site rule, it's absolutely not too late to remove the Expires: indication on all IDs published as we go forward. Note - I don't agree that past IDs should be posted after expiration without the author's consent. They were submitted with that understanding, and post-facto changing it by the IETF is not appropriate. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/8/2012 8:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 9/7/12 7:58 PM, Joe Touch wrote: What can that mean if it remains available to the public? What purpose does such an automatic timeout have if it is left up? IMO, none. It seems to me that the timeout takes the draft out of consideration. A new draft supercedes that timeout. And if they're useful, then you're admitting that continued discussion can occur after 6 months. At which point there is no meaning to expiration. Any note regarding how long the discussion of a draft should occur would be on the mailing list anyway, and thus no longer would belong on the document. --- I'm baffled by the notion that posting IDs forever is OK, but that simply removing the Expires statement is so controversial. Joe
Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site
On 9/8/12 10:51 AM, Joe Touch wrote: Nothing about an ID is inherently obsolete or out of date after 6 months except its being publicly available on authorized sites (up until now). I think this is absolutely incorrect. Internet Drafts are IETF documents, and expiration changes the relationship between the draft and the IETF. I have to say that I think it's terribly unprofessional not to hang onto archival material and frankly it's in the interest of the IETF as an *open* standards organization to keep archival material accessible. When you're working on a problem that's been around forever and still hasn't been solved (like, oh, I dunno - firewall/NAT traversal?), easy access to expired drafts is an enormous help. Would you be more comfortable if there were some sort of visual flag that a draft had expired? Melinda
