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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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Nothing about an ID is inherently obsolete or out of date after 6 months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
Hi Joe,
At 11:51 08-09-2012, Joe Touch wrote:
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
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
The IESG's initial thought on this matter was that the bar for
removing things from the archive ought to be set as high as we could
get it so as to avoid all sorts of silly requests and DoS attacks
(and, at least in my mind, so that the legal questions were near nil:
unless an appropriate
Randy,
On 9/7/12 8:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The IESG's initial thought on this matter was that the bar for
removing things from the archive ought to be set as high as we could
get it so as to avoid all sorts of silly requests and DoS attacks
(and, at least in my mind, so that the legal
An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a competent legal demand.
This leaves sufficient flexibility for the IESG to decide when a legal
demand requires the removal and when it's bogus
so the iesg will now spend their spring retreat in law school? we have
a test
Randy,
so the iesg will now spend their spring retreat in law school? we have
a test for competent legal demand. it is called a court order.
In the case of DMCA, if you wait for a court order, you can lose your
liability shield, which has been the point that Sam and others have
raised. There
In the case of DMCA
i am not competent to speak to circumstances surrounding a dmca. i am
glad you and all the other engineers here are. sure saves the ietf
lawyer a lot of work.
randy
In the case of DMCA
i am not competent to speak to circumstances surrounding a dmca. i am
glad you and all the other engineers here are. sure saves the ietf
lawyer a lot of work.
Bingo. And even if we were competent to assess this stuff - which we most
assuredly are not - any notion that
Ned,
We are venturing into an area of rabid agreement on the premise but
disagreement on the conclusion, which I find astonishing.
On 9/7/12 9:29 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
The only question that need concern us at present is whether or not the
stated policy gives the IESG the necessary
On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
Would
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally
required to do so.
fix the ambiguity?
Stewart
On 9/7/12 11:33 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
Would
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally
required to do so.
That is
--On Friday, September 07, 2012 10:33 +0100 Stewart Bryant
stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 07/09/2012 07:49, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in
compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
Would
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D
--On Friday, September 07, 2012 15:54 +0900 Randy Bush
ra...@psg.com wrote:
An I-D MAY be removed from the public I-D archive in
compliance with a competent legal demand.
This leaves sufficient flexibility for the IESG to decide
when a legal demand requires the removal and when it's bogus
On 9/7/2012 2:42 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive if legally
required to do so.
That is where I was aiming, albeit with s/will/may/. Again, I recommend
that Jorge review. Nothing in this policy should REQUIRE the IESG to
act, or set that
On 07/09/2012 14:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
The IESG should not be /required/ to honor a court order?
whose court order?
Nick
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:35:24PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
I must say, I find this a very strange thing to say. The original
statement was we will not remove anything from the archive unless
ordered to by duly authorized court.
[…]
questions. I'm not sure I like the idea of making my job
On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
...
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.
+1
Let's not forget there was a reason for expiration.
I'm OK with the archive being public so long as at least
On 07/09/2012 15:48, Joe Touch wrote:
On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
...
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.
Speaking as a document reviewer for both Gen-ART and the Independent
On 9/7/2012 8:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 07/09/2012 15:48, Joe Touch wrote:
...
Let's not forget there was a reason for expiration.
Expired != invisible
Expired = no longer *published*.
IMO, the expires indication on an ID indicates the expiration of the
ability of the ISOC to
PS - to note an astonishing concept:
On 9/7/2012 8:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 07/09/2012 15:48, Joe Touch wrote:
On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
...
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
On 9/7/2012 8:45 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
It's not always about what is best for *you* or for other reviewers.
Actually, it is. The documents are issued by the IETF to facilitate
public discussion. It's the only reason to have the mechanism.
It's about what encourages a more open exchange
On 9/7/2012 8:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/7/2012 8:45 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
It's not always about what is best for *you* or for other reviewers.
Actually, it is. The documents are issued by the IETF to facilitate
public discussion. It's the only reason to have the mechanism.
There
As I noted, if the IETF publishes IDs, why bother with RFCs?
It's difficult to imagine that you mean that as a serious question, but
just in case:
You are asking whether there is an important difference between a
circulating mechanism that has no review, approval or quality control
On 9/7/2012 9:21 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
And by the way, formally, I-D's are not published. That's a
semantic point, but apparently it's important for this discussion.
At lease one of the ISOC's boilerplates states:
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of
On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
As I noted, if the IETF publishes IDs, why bother with RFCs?
In addition to what Dave said, the target audience of drafts are IETF
participants. The target audience of RFCs varies, but in the usual case it's
implementers. So drafts might have
At 08:43 07-09-2012, Joe Touch wrote:
IMO, the expires indication on an ID indicates the expiration of
the ability of the ISOC to publish the draft.
This raises the question of what expires means.
So IMO the ISOC is then violating the terms of submission of a doc
if it posts it publicly in
On 9/7/2012 11:37 AM, SM wrote:
At 08:43 07-09-2012, Joe Touch wrote:
IMO, the expires indication on an ID indicates the expiration of the
ability of the ISOC to publish the draft.
This raises the question of what expires means.
At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then
On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org 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.
On Wed 05/Sep/2012 21:59:56 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:02 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
On 9/5/12 1:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
I support this statement, with the additions suggested by Sam Hartman,
John Klensin, and (most importantly) Brian Carpenter.
In addition, I would suggest adding clarifying text to the extent that
I-Ds will remain to be stored in non publicly accessible
Also it might be useful for the submitter to sign (rather tick a
tickbox/radio button) an indemnification clause for the IETF before
submitting an I-D.
Even a totally meritless DMCA challenge could cost upwards of $100,000
in legal fees to challenge and go through court hearings. Will that
be
On Tue 04/Sep/2012 19:57:36 +0200 Russ Housley wrote:
If an I-D is posted with secret text, then the secret is disclosed.
I-D are copied to many shadow repositories all over the world. So,
removing the I-D from ietf.org will not remove the secret text from
the Internet.
I figure the odds
At 17:00 03-09-2012, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the
community are solicited.
[snip]
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
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
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
On 5 Sep 2012, at 06:20, Vinayak Hegde vinay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
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
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 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
At 03:20 05-09-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
It might be prudent to add other details of the DMCA order as well. I
have seen that other websites do that.
The IETF can provide the reason for a removal, e.g. a DMCA order, in
the tombstone. The if possible was left in as there could be a gag
On 5 Sep 2012, at 10:51, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 03:20 05-09-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
It might be prudent to add other details of the DMCA order as well. I
have seen that other websites do that.
The IETF can provide the reason for a removal, e.g. a DMCA order, in the
tombstone.
Of Ted
Hardie
Sent: 05 September 2012 16:05
To: IETF Chair
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the
IETF
Web Site
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from
On 05/09/2012 15:51, SM wrote:
...
Yes. There has been a request to remove an I-D.
That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
In the only case I am personally aware of, in 2006/7, there
was a dispute (outside the IETF), with lawyer's letters flying
around. Eventually, in a
] On Behalf
Of Ted Hardie
Sent: 05 September 2012 16:05
To: IETF Chair
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from
the
IETF
Web Site
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from
+1
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:04 PM
To: SM
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF
Web Site
On 05/09/2012 15:51, SM
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 08:05 -0700 Ted Hardie
ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea that there be mechanisms for removal of IDs
from both that don't require a court order, but I don't think
it should be too simple. I'd suggest:
a) Stream owner approval for streams
I'd be supportive of allowing the IESG to make a decision to remove I-Ds based
on court orders, abuse, and other well-justified reasons.
Such events would be rare, and we should let the IESG do its job of making
decisions based on available information. The statement need not and should not
On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I'd be supportive of allowing the IESG to make a decision to remove I-Ds
based on court orders, abuse, and other well-justified reasons.
Such events would be rare, and we should let the IESG do its job of making
decisions
On 9/5/2012 10:50 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I'd be supportive of allowing the IESG to make a decision to remove I-Ds based
on court orders, abuse, and other well-justified reasons.
Such events would be rare, and we should let
by a court order.
Stephan
On 9.3.2012 17:00 , 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
Hi Brian,
At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html
I think the IESG needs to keep the flexibility to do that, although
in all normal circumstances the answer should
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted
Hardie
Sent: 05 September 2012 16:05
To: IETF Chair
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the
IETF
Web Site
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote
The IESG is considering
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:46 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
a) Stream owner approval for streams outside the IETF stream
(documents identified as irtf or IAB).
b) Relevant AD for WG documents
c) IESG for individual submissions, with any AD able to put
the matter to the IESG.
At
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:02 -0700 SM
s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html
Of course, there is a case to be made that, if
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the
community are solicited.
i presume that you have done your legal homework and know what you are
doing. and i try not to play amateur lawyer.
so it seems like a good thing to me.
randy
Hi John,
At 12:59 05-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
Of course, there is a case to be made that, if we had a more
sophisticated posting system that enforced the few rules we
already have, it would not have been accepted and posted in the
first place. Individual drafts are supposed to be title
On 9/5/2012 3:16 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the
community are solicited.
i presume that you have done your legal homework
alas, they hadn't.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:32 -0700 Ted Hardie
ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
For third party requests to remove others' independent
submissions, I think there should be a pretty high bar. Open
submission is a key part of open standards, in my opinion,
and if it becomes overly easy
Without commenting on Sam's specific examples, I think the policy
should include a generally or normally weasel word, so that
the IESG can make exceptions in unusual circumstances.
It really should be unusual though. A real case some years ago
involved a dispute between an ex-employee and
The first paragraph says:
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.
After all the groups, I'd add and individuals.
On Tue
in addition
since there is no admissions control on IDs I would think that the IESG would
want
to reserve the option to remove an ID that contained clear libel or
inappropriate
material (e.g., a pornographic story published as an ID as part of a DoS attack
on the IETF) once the IESG had been
On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:20 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
The first paragraph says:
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
+1. Internet Drafts are also required for publication in the Independent
Submission stream of RFCs. They are also used by individuals who make
proposals that they hope will later become WG items, but are not working
documents of the WG when they are written.
So are Independent submission
non-laywer here,
The IETF is not an ISP and does not accordingly have safe harbor privileges.
Junior Lawyer here. A quick look at the law, or even the Wikipedia
article about it
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act)
reveals that the DMCA refers
counternotice?
Cheers,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
Levine
Sent: 04 September 2012 15:48
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the
IETF
Web Site
non-laywer
Hi.
I agree with Sam and Scott. Let me add one more piece to that
picture:
We have spent many years saying not only I-Ds expire but I-Ds
are not an archival series. While I've gradually come around
to the advantages of the IETF maintaining an archive of old ones
and making it accessible, I
Sam,
On 9/4/12 3:29 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I strongly urge the IESG to be significantly more liberal in the cases
where an I-D will be removed from the archive.
I can think of a number of cases where I'd hope that the IESg would be
cooperative:
1) the IETF recieves a DMCA take-down
Dave:
Until recently, the I-D archive was not publicly available. It was made public
to support the rfcdiff tool. Prior to this action, the I-D archive was
accessible only to the Secretariat. This IESG statement is establishing the
policy now that the I-D archive is public.
Russ
On Sep 3,
Alessandro:
If an I-D is posted with secret text, then the secret is disclosed. I-D are
copied to many shadow repositories all over the world. So, removing the I-D
from ietf.org will not remove the secret text from the Internet.
Please explain what you mean by inappropriate boilerplate? The
This discussion of DMCA is useful to me as a non-US resident.
Are we sure that the boilerplate included in I-Ds does not constitute a
statement by the authors that they have not, as far as they are aware,
infringed any copyright? In other words, isn't the boilerplate a
pre-emptive
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:49 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
This discussion of DMCA is useful to me as a non-US resident.
Are we sure that the boilerplate included in I-Ds does not constitute a
statement by the authors that they have not, as far as they are aware,
infringed any
On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 08:54:36 AM Vinayak Hegde wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:49 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
This discussion of DMCA is useful to me as a non-US resident.
Are we sure that the boilerplate included in I-Ds does not constitute a
statement by the
In message
CAKe6YvN8oTov0FvUtrnR=u092e7kjecyb1+-mecmvp5qkdj...@mail.gmail.com, Vinayak
Hegde writes:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:49 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
This discussion of DMCA is useful to me as a non-US resident.
Are we sure that the boilerplate included in I-Ds does not
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
Also it might be useful for the submitter to sign (rather tick a
tickbox/radio button) an indemnification clause for the IETF before
submitting an I-D.
As an individual, I'd never consider agreeing to indemnify the IETF, even
if I had created the
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
On 9/3/2012 5:00 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering this IESG Statement. Comments from the community are
solicited.
1. Unless I've missed something, the statement seems to reflect
established practice and established policy. Or is it changing something?
2. I had thought that
I strongly urge the IESG to be significantly more liberal in the cases
where an I-D will be removed from the archive.
I can think of a number of cases where I'd hope that the IESg would be
cooperative:
1) the IETF recieves a DMCA take-down notice or other instrument
indicating that a third
On 9/3/12 18:29 , Sam Hartman wrote:
I strongly urge the IESG to be significantly more liberal in the cases
where an I-D will be removed from the archive.
I can think of a number of cases where I'd hope that the IESg would be
cooperative:
1) the IETF recieves a DMCA take-down notice or
101 - 184 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
