Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
My assumption was not that the work was available for IETF use.
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with the work
and I retained no rights. Use it. Give it to
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 20:29 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Reply below. /Larry
...
[LR:] I am asking as an attorney and IETF participant (we're
all individuals here, I've been told, with individual
opinions) who is anxious to understand why so many people on
On Thu Dec 18 11:08:09 2008, John C Klensin wrote:
To answer a slightly different question, but one that may be
more useful, the IETF was propelled along the path of specific
policies, with the original ones clearly recognizing the
installed base, because of credible threats to block work
unless
On Dec 18, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Dec 18 11:08:09 2008, John C Klensin wrote:
To answer a slightly different question, but one that may be
more useful, the IETF was propelled along the path of specific
policies, with the original ones clearly recognizing the
installed
Speaking as an individual, IANAL, etc., a few general comments...
First, overall, the issues John raises are real and need to be
addressed, IMO.
Second, I know of cases (while I was AD) where a WG participant owned
the copyright on an ID the WG had been discussing, and then balked at
making
Silly question. Is this discussion more appropriate to ietf-ipr?
One could argue that ietf-ipr looked at this question for two years
prior to submitting the new boilerplate, and by missing it made it
clear that they weren't adequate to review. That said, there was also
an IETF last call,
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 14:00 -0800 Randy Presuhn
randy_pres...@mindspring.com wrote:
Particularly since the permission to create derivative works
and successor standards has been granted as part of the
boilerplate for a long long time.
Yes. But that was permission given directly
: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73
Plenary
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-12-18 11:32, Dave CROCKER wrote:
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
False. You never implicitly transferred ownership.
Yes I did. As I say
--On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 09:10 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Larry, your email sounded dangerously close to suggesting
that it might be ok to break the copyright law because no one
would object to it. Is that what you are suggesting?
Not
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
As an exercise that I don't have time to conduct, it would be
interesting to see how much of the text of the original IP
specification is still present in the IPv6 one... and that was
only 20 years and may, in retrospect, have involved too few
John C Klensin wrote:
I would assume that, if someone were revising TCP or IP fifty
years hence, they would end up creating new text, rather than
moving a lot of technical text forward, and that they would do
so for all sorts of technical reasons independent of copyright
constraints.
--On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 14:15 -0500 Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
As an exercise that I don't have time to conduct, it would be
interesting to see how much of the text of the original IP
specification is still present in the IPv6
--On Thursday, 18 December, 2008 14:42 -0500 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
I would assume that, if someone were revising TCP or IP fifty
years hence, they would end up creating new text, rather than
moving a lot of technical text forward, and that
tell you what - if by some very small chance (probably less than 1%) I'm still
around 50 years from now and feel like revising RFC 793 at that time, I'll
trust that you've already reconnected with Jon and gotten his permission :)
either that, or I'll already be dead, and I'll ask him myself.
Keith == mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Keith tell you what - if by some very small chance (probably less
Keith than 1%) I'm still around 50 years from now and feel like
Keith revising RFC 793 at that time, I'll trust that you've
Keith already reconnected with Jon and
Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
Dave When the person is not longer available, the effect is more
Dave than discomfort.
Strictly speaking, that's not
--On Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 22:08 -0500 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
I have a very different view of this situation, and disagree
wstrongly with John's recommended fix (or the equivalent fix
of completely rolling back 5378 and 5377.)
First and foremost, it should be kept
Sanm,
I believe it has already been observed by others that this is not a reasonable
scenario.
However your response does provide a good example of just how badly the latest
model is broken.
d/
Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 12:31 -0500 Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
Dave When the person is not longer available, the effect
is
John C Klensin wrote:
I agree that there were perceived problems that needed to be
fixed. I think you have given a good summary of most of them.
It is exactly for that reason that I did not propose rolling
back 5378 (or 5377).
Unfortunately, we do not get to pick and choose the parts of
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
Dave When the person is not longer available, the effect is more
Dave than discomfort.
Strictly speaking, that's not actually true. We're talking about
Dear John;
From your email :
On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:16 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
(iii) Rewrite the document to remove any copyright
dependencies on text whose status is uncertain or for
which rights transfers are significantly difficult.
This is a dangerous
Marshall,
I completely agree. I also don't want to have us start down the
path of rewriting text: most of what the IETF produces are
technical documents, not works of fiction, and the odds
significant rewriting screwing things up are high, perhaps a
near-certainty.
I also share your dislike for
Based on the discussion I have seen, an escape mechanism for old text
that really can not be processed otherwise is probably reasonable.
However, if we are making an effort to retain the work that was done, my
personal take is that the barrier to that escape mechanism has to be
high enough that
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Yes, having to get rights from folks is a pain.
When the person is not longer available, the effect is more than discomfort.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
John C Klensin wrote:
But both your comments and that can't get it right issue just
reinforce my view that we either need an escape mechanism for
old text or need a model in which the Trust, not the submitters,
take responsibility for text Contributed to the IETF under older
rules. For the
Dave CROCKER wrote:
What is change control if not the authority to make changes to the
document?
exactly. or to use copyright terminology, the right to make derivative
works.
Keith
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Fred Baker wrote:
Silly question. Is this discussion more appropriate to ietf-ipr?
Not any more.
It was. But the result is what a number of different folk who are serious,
long-term IETF contributors consider the current situation to be a basic crisis
that prevents working on some
John C Klensin wrote:
The assumption that you made was ultimately that work done for
or within the IETF was available for IETF use.
...
The issues that drove 5378 have to do with non-IETF uses of text
from these documents. For example, if someone on the other side
of the world decided to
Fred Baker wrote:
Silly question. Is this discussion more appropriate to ietf-ipr?
Not any more.
It was. But the result is what a number of different folk who are serious,
long-term IETF contributors consider the current situation to be a basic crisis
that prevents working on some existing
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 13:05 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
But both your comments and that can't get it right issue
just reinforce my view that we either need an escape
mechanism for old text or need a model in which the Trust,
not the
Randy Presuhn wrote:
That is: Working groups are part of the IETF and 'authors' of working group
documents are acting as when writing IETF documents.agents of the IETF. While
I assume the missing word is editors
fooey. thanks for catching that. very sorry i didn't.
no, I meant to
Hi -
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Cc: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
...
That is: Working groups are part of the IETF
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 14:32 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
My assumption was not that the work was available for IETF
use.
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and
simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with
the work
Dave,
On 2008-12-18 11:32, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
My assumption was not that the work was available for IETF use.
Correct.
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
False. You never implicitly transferred ownership.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if
Dave CROCKER wrote:
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with the work and
I retained no rights. Use it. Give it to another group. Kill it.
Whatever.
My understanding was that IETF had a non-exclusive,
Hi -
From: John C Klensin j...@jck.com
To: Randy Presuhn randy_pres...@mindspring.com; IETF discussion list
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
...
What gives your WG the ability to function is 5.4
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-12-18 11:32, Dave CROCKER wrote:
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
False. You never implicitly transferred ownership.
Yes I did. As I say, that was the culture.
Scott didn't have to come to Erik or me and ask permission,
Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF
73 Plenary
...
What gives your WG the ability to function is 5.4, where the
Trust gives back to the IETF participants what the Trust
received under 5.1 and 5.3. But they can't give back what
they don't have, so, if your WG is required to derive its
and
establish functional Internet standards.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Dave CROCKER
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:34 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam
--On Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 16:56 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
That was the culture. Law often
follows culture, since culture creates established practice.
I hope you're right.
May I ask: Is there anyone on this list who is asserting a
Reply below. /Larry
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:02 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; 'IETF discussion list'
Subject: RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
--On Wednesday, 17 December
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
That's the problem around here. People worry to death about IP claims that
nobody is willing to actually make. People develop IP policies that solve
nonexistent problems (such as the code vs. text debate) and, by doing
so, add further confusion, evidenced by this current
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of
Dave CROCKER
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:34 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73
Plenary
Brian E
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with the work and
I retained no rights. Use it. Give it to another group. Kill it.
Whatever.
My
Material comments:
- Section 3: RFC 5378 expected the date on which 5378 was effective to
be set by the Trust (section 2.1), and explicitly did not want to cast
into RFC stone the procedure by which the changeover date was determined.
- I disagree with the decision to allow *all* of a
(in the interest of efficiency, I'm going to respond to Harald's
and Simon's comments in a single note and pick up one of
Hector's remarks in the process)
Harald,
--On Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 09:53 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no wrote:
Material comments:
- Section 3: RFC
Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com writes:
I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been
provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't
know how I can submit new versions of the WG internet drafts that I
am an co-author of. I can not even
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it. If
someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of this
one way or the other
Dave,
--On Tuesday, 16 December, 2008 10:26 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Indeed. But more importantly, this sub-thread naturally and
inevitably reduces down to an infinite, entirely unproductive
finger-pointing game.
For various reasons, I don't believe that game is infinite.
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
We have a reality that the new IPR rules are fundamentally
problematic. Prior to their imposition, we had a functioning
system. Now we don't.
And the only thing that changed was imposition of the new
rules.
At 13:41 16-12-2008, Sam Hartman wrote:
For what it is worth, I as an individual support the new rules, and
believe Russ gave me a fine answer.
You asked a good question.
I would not support turning this into a choice.
According to a message [1] posted by the IETF Chair, the updated
I have a very different view of this situation, and disagree wstrongly
with John's recommended fix (or the equivalent fix of completely
rolling back 5378 and 5377.)
First and foremost, it should be kept in ming by anyone reading this
that the IPR working was convened by the then IETF chair,
AJ Jaghori ciscowo...@gmail.com writes:
Modifying an author's original work without specified permission;
regardless of new findings, constitutes a copyright infringement.
Sure, but the old RFC copyright license (e.g., RFC 2026 and RFC 3978)
gave IETF participants the necessary rights to allow
Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com writes:
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood
it. If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence
of this one
Hi.
In an attempt to get this discussion unstuck and to provide a
way forward for those of us whose reading of 5378 (or advice
from counsel) have convinced us that we cannot post most
documents that contain older text written by others under the
new rules, I've posted a new I-D,
On Dec 15, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
AJ Jaghori ciscowo...@gmail.com writes:
Modifying an author's original work without specified permission;
regardless of new findings, constitutes a copyright infringement.
Sure, but the old RFC copyright license (e.g., RFC 2026 and RFC
John,
I like the draft. It looks like a fairly pragmatic approach to solve
the problem.
I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been
provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't
know how I can submit new versions of the WG internet drafts
Hi.
I've just reposted this draft as
draft-klensin-rfc5378var-01.txt. I didn't removing the material
I indicated I was going to remove because this version follows
too quickly on the previous one.
There are only two sets of changes, but the first seemed
sufficiently important to be worth a
Russ Housley wrote:
Marshall:
My understanding (and IANAL and Jorge is welcome to correct me) is
that the IETF
does indeed have sufficient rights to allow re-use of IETF documents
within the IETF, and
that this is purely concerned with the power of granting modification
rights to other
At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:49:09 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:49:09 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-12-13 08:20, Russ Housley wrote:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:12:17 -0800 Eric Rescorla e...@networkresonance.com
wrote:
At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:49:09 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:49:09 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-12-13 08:20, Russ Housley wrote:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it.
If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of
this one way or the other that would be great. I
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
On Dec 13, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Cullen Jennings responded:
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it.
If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
...
The notion is not right, albeit that it is reflected in the current IETF IPR
policy, that a process can be in any way restricted from being improved
because someone planted a copyright notice on its essential description. An
description of a process, method of
Lawrence Rosen allegedly wrote, On 12/13/08 2:04 PM:
The notion is not right, albeit that it is reflected in the current IETF IPR
policy, that a process can be in any way restricted from being improved
because someone planted a copyright notice on its essential description. An
description of a
You can improve any technology you want, modulo IPR -- that's not the
point here. The problem is taking existing copyrighted text and using
it as a base for describing your technology.
That's indeed the problem we stumbled upon years ago. Suppose that a
contributor has written a complete
So my answer to Sam's question is: I dare anyone to try and stop you
or me from taking an IETF RFC and revising it as necessary to express
any new idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
concept, principle, or discovery. And I dare anyone to try and stop
IETF or any other standards
On 2008-12-14 05:12, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:12:17 -0800 Eric Rescorla e...@networkresonance.com
wrote:
At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:49:09 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-12-13 08:20, Russ Housley wrote:
...
Process are clearly already available, but the contributor
Modifying an author's original work without specified permission;
regardless of new findings, constitutes a copyright infringement.
On 12/13/08, Christian Huitema huit...@windows.microsoft.com wrote:
You can improve any technology you want, modulo IPR -- that's not the
point here. The
IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org writes:
What does a contributor do in the situation when then want to build on an
older work that was contributed prior to RFC 5378?
In short, the contributor must obtain the additional rights from the
original contributor.
Doesn't that make it possible for
IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org writes:
SAM'S QUESTION
What does a contributor do in the situation when then want to build on an
older work that was contributed prior to RFC 5378?
In short, the contributor must obtain the additional rights from the
original contributor.
To my knowledge, there
On Dec 12, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org writes:
SAM'S QUESTION
What does a contributor do in the situation when then want to build
on an
older work that was contributed prior to RFC 5378?
In short, the contributor must obtain the additional rights
Marshall Eubanks t...@multicasttech.com writes:
While this has been argued to death
I disagree. The issue was raised only few weeks ago, and this e-mail
thread is (as far as I have seen) the first where the problem has bee
re-stated in an e-mail to any public IETF list.
Contributors of IETF
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion of having to either contact a lot of people to
get permission or to completely rewrite is just not
Dear John;
On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:10 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion of having to either contact a
Let us be quite clear. The question of rights in pre-existing material
is not a new question. It is inherent in any effort to increase the
rights granted to the trust. While I can not assert what members of the
WG or the community at last call understood, there is actually text in
RFC 5377
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion of having to either contact a lot of people to
get
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
... the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
to modify and update tools to incorporate
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC 4398. The reason is that some material in that document
was written by others. At least, I cannot
Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC 4398. The reason is that some material in that document
I hereby extend the rights in my contributions that I have personally
granted in the past to the IETF and to the IETF Trust to include
the additional rights required by RFC5378. Obviously by doing so,
I cannot extend the rights granted by my various employers.
I'm going to print the updated
On 2008-12-12 12:40, John C Klensin wrote:
...
So, given that, the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
to modify and update tools to incorporate the new
... the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
to modify and update tools to incorporate the new boilerplate.
They gave one working day of notice that they
Marshall:
My understanding (and IANAL and Jorge is welcome to correct me) is
that the IETF
does indeed have sufficient rights to allow re-use of IETF
documents within the IETF, and
that this is purely concerned with the power of granting
modification rights to other parties.
This is not a
At 8:56 AM +1300 12/13/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm disappointed at how few people have signed up.
+1. The Trust even had cookies in the room when I signed my old form. New form
is on the way to them.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
On 2008-12-13 08:20, Russ Housley wrote:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC 4398. The reason is that some material in that document
I'm disappointed at how few people have signed up. Even people who've
been active in this debate haven't signed up to the old version.
I signed the old form (on paper) and handed it in a while
back but do not see my name on the list -- did a bit get
dropped somewhere?
Scott
A form is being developed to assist in this task. There is no
requirement that the form be used, but it will be available
shortly for anyone that chooses to make use of it.
This form is now available. The Contributor non-exclusive
license form has been updated to grant all of the rights
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2008-12-13 08:20, Russ Housley wrote:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC
A form is being developed to assist in this task. There is no
requirement that the form be used, but it will be available
shortly for anyone that chooses to make use of it.
This form is now available. The Contributor non-exclusive
license form has been updated to grant all of the rights
--On Thursday, 11 December, 2008 14:48 -0800 IETF Chair
ch...@ietf.org wrote:
During the IETF 73 Plenary, Sam Hartman asked some questions
about the recent updates to the IETF IPR policy. Before
responding to Sam's question, it will be important to provide
...
The updated boilerplate will
93 matches
Mail list logo
