Rather than debate the matter people seem to like to go hyperbolic and
that's not useful. (Yes, Brian, you could use a search engine to find
times when I've gone hyperbolic).
I never suggested that I or anyone else should republish someone else's
work without their permission. I cited examples
--On Friday, 29 September, 2000 13:02 -0700 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Let's assume that Mike O'Dell never submits his idea as an RFC.
What then? It's not just Mike O'Dell who loses. Perhaps he
doesn't lose at all, since he'll be able to reproduce what he
wrote from his
From: Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Grenville Armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
A key point about validity is the agreement btwn author(s) and
the IETF.
Once the timer expires, the ID is not valid
Date:Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:06:48 -0700
From:"Melinda Shore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 004601c02bc1$9c4194c0$3c61530a@spandex
| Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't think that anybody
| has proposed that expired drafts are to be considered
| valid inputs to the
I don't think the issue is "weight" as much as it is the
rights to intellectual property contained within the I-D
(and here I mean intellectual property in the most general
sense of the term so as to include copyrights and also
other intellectual property rights).
At least that's where a good
Robert,
I think the I-D are explicitly NOT public domain. Even in WG form, they
carry rights held by the author and implicit licenses to the WG for
derivative works. To make something public domain I think you have
to take a fairly definite action or declaration since the most recent
revisions
in the Internet environment, and in particular in the I-D environment,
this could be particularly difficult. Maybe the search engines will help :-)
v
At 11:06 AM 10/1/2000 -0700, Melinda Shore wrote:
If one were to get anal about it, legally intellectual
property claims have to be actively
Date:Sun, 01 Oct 2000 11:16:31 -0400
From:vint cerf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I think the I-D are explicitly NOT public domain.
As a general rule, absolutely, I agree. However, drafts that I happen
to write which are WG output explicitly
*
* one point you are ignoring when it comes to publishing just
* anything as an RFC: once it has that designation "RFC",
* THE IDEA IS SANCTIFIED, no matter what disclaimers you
* plaster all over it. (Even a biohazard symbol with a
* legend reading "DANGER: LIVE EBOLA" wouldn't
Copyright does not protect ideas, just expression of these ideas. Thus,
anybody can take the ideas expressed in an I-D, expired or not, wrong or
not, and use them in any way he or she pleases, whether the author
appreciates this or not. (With the exception of patents, but they only
restrict
From: Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
This seems very foreign to the concept of free scholarly exchange and
the notion of copyright. ...
Yes, at least some of those who are objecting to the existence of an IETF
I-D repository have not taken to heart the notions that they expect to
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
[...]
* PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to.
* that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny
* modicum of control over something. the notion that people
* other than the author can
Bill Manning wrote:
% Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
%
% And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
% benefit of an associated WG.
%
% Precisely my point to Grenville.
%
% Our discussion had nothing to do with who the question of who
% *generates*
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If one were to get anal about it, legally intellectual property claims
have to be actively protected in order to remain valid.
I could be wrong, but I've always heard that this is only true of
trademarks, and at least I don't see anything in the
the arguments about whether IETF can legally make a long-term archive of
I-Ds largely miss the point.
IETF might decide, after consulting its attorneys, that it can accept
the risk of getting sued by I-D authors for copyright infringement.
after all, most of us probably don't want to sue IETF
On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:12:55 -0400, Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
on the other hand, (and IMHO) making the I-D series permanently archived
will discourage folks from tossing out half-baked ideas and trying to
get others to improve on them;
The I-D series already *is* permanently,
The I-D series already *is* permanently, publicly archived
by that logic, there's no point in IETF creating its own archive.
(after all, others are doing a fine job of it at no cost to IETF, right?)
presumably folks who want this archive believe that IETF's creation
of an archive will have
On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 22:47:03 -0400, Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The I-D series already *is* permanently, publicly archived
by that logic, there's no point in IETF creating its own archive.
(after all, others are doing a fine job of it at no cost to IETF, right?)
It's the matter of
one point you are ignoring when it comes to publishing just
anything as an RFC: once it has that designation "RFC",
THE IDEA IS SANCTIFIED, no matter what disclaimers you
plaster all over it. (Even a biohazard symbol with a
legend reading "DANGER: LIVE EBOLA" wouldn't help. Ooops -
can't do
% have a nice day.
%
% -mo
%
% PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to.
% that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny
% modicum of control over something. the notion that people
% other than the author can usurp control and publish it anyway
% is
Greg Minshall wrote:
i think there are two issues.
one is that when I-Ds were created, there was some controversy, mainly
revolving around the notion that we already had a forum for people putting out
ideas (known as RFCs), and that the fact that the public concept of RFC was
different
% Bottom line is that access to historical information is useful. The IETF
% should (and I'm glad to hear, will) make this material available. As
% Martha Stewart says, "And this is good".
%
% - peterd
I think that the IETF secretary will be on shaky ground
PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to.
that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny
modicum of control over something. the notion that people
other than the author can usurp control and publish it anyway
is repugnant and is plagarism, pure and
% is repugnant and is plagarism, pure and simple, no matter
% whether the author gets listed or not. you didn't have permission,
% it's plagarism, if not theft.
%
% That doesn't make sense to me. (But I admit I'm far from a wizard
% on IETF procedures and rules.)
%
% Are you trying to tell
Are you trying to tell me that somebody can publish a draft, and then
"let it expire" just because they don't like the changes that other
people suggest? Does the author get veto power over improvements
that a working group agrees to?
there are two separate issues here:
it seems to me
And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
benefit of an associated WG.
Precisely my point to Grenville.
% Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
%
% And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
% benefit of an associated WG.
%
% Precisely my point to Grenville.
%
% Our discussion had nothing to do with who the question of who
% *generates* I-Ds, but what makes them valid
Eliot;
I would accept your interpretation if you can go to a major search engine,
like Yahoo or Altavista, and find me in a brief period of time ANY version
of Mike O'Dell's 8+8 proposal.
You should really check archive of a big internet mailing list (does
someone know where it is archived?)
PROTECTED]
To: Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Mike O'Dell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
--On Thursday, 28 September, 2000 12:02 -0700 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Thursday, 28 September, 2000 02:28 -0400 vint cerf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perhaps I-Ds are more like elaborated lab notebooks?
very useful for patent references, reviewing dead ends, partly
explored ideas, etc. One doesn't typically throw away lab
notebooks just because you didn't
the twist between I-D and lab notebook is that the I-D is
often an explicitly shared document (group lab notebook).
Vint
In general, I would guess that there would be no problem, ethical, legal
or otherwise, if authors explicitly agreed, retroactively or by
boilerplate, to have the document archived. Thus, one could envision at
least three solutions:
(1) Modify I-D boilerplate to include (or not) a statement like
http://www.alternic.org/drafts/drafts-i-j/draft-ietf-ipngwg-gseaddr-00.txt
(this is the revised version, I didn't look for the original 8+8)
Brian
Eliot Lear wrote:
John,
I would accept your interpretation if you can go to a major search engine,
like Yahoo or Altavista, and find me in
11694@P2
* Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
* Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:02:04 -0700
* Organization: Cisco Systems
* MIME-Version: 1.0
* Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
* X-Priority: 3
* X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
* X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Expre
* I would accept your interpretation if you can go to a
major search engine,
* like Yahoo or Altavista, and find me in a brief period
of time ANY version
* of Mike O'Dell's 8+8 proposal. Don't you think it
shameful that there is
* no permanent record about a serious effort to
Would everybody please stop sending me search results!? Google seems to
have it on the front page. Yahoo doesn't. People are getting mixed
results out of Altavista. [Talk about a dumb message that shouldn't have
been archived ;-].
The document that Christian found on the IETF server is NOT
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:57:14PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
It's not merely that I-D's are already archived, albeit inconveniently
and obscurely.
yes, but IETF isn't (yet) maintaining public archives, so IETF doesn't
(yet) have the liability of breaking its agreement to expire the
The use of IDs for demonstration of prior art raises an interesting
possibility: forged or altered IDs being used to challenge patents.
interesting point.
another possible way to solve it, independent of an official IETF archive,
would be to have internet-drafts timestamped on submission
At 02:43 PM 9/28/00 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
Hear, hear! In fact, we may want to create a procedure for "instant
historical" publication, that would take such drafts and publish them as RFC
because we believe that they mark important points in the public debate, and
because we want to
From: Stephen Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
As someone who was around when the notion of an I-D was
created, let
me disagree somewhat
At 12:07 27/09/00, Melinda Shore wrote:
Archival material is *extremely* important for
future research.
The archival material is the RFC --*only*--.
Just because the document isn't
for publication and cannot be used normatively
doesn't mean that it should be obliterated.
I would not want
Archival material is *extremely* important for future research.
no doubt. but we have a conflict of interests here.
on one hand, historians and folks doing patent searches could
make good use of archived internet-drafts.
on the other hand, IETF needs the Internet-Draft series to be very
From: RJ Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
The archival material is the RFC --*only*--.
Actually, it's not. It's whatever's
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
already there are too many folks who avoid issuing
I-Ds except when required to do so
already there are too many folks who avoid issuing
I-Ds except when required to do so because they feel that the
publication process is too burdensome and too slow, and too
many people treat I-Ds as something akin to final form documents
(as in, they need to be close to "right") rather
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2000 09:58 -0400 RJ Atkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:07 27/09/00, Melinda Shore wrote:
Archival material is *extremely* important for
future research.
The archival material is the RFC --*only*--.
Melinda,
I've got very mixed feelings about this
On the other hand, there's the National Archives in the U.S. If I'm
not mistaken, there's a requirement that even draft papers be
preserved, precisely because of their importance to the historical
record. (There's a lot of discussion there about retention of email
and the like by government
But seriously - it would be *nice* if the trade press scrutinized all the
documents - but sometimes I wish the reporter would wave a cluon-flux meter
over the press release..
Mabe we need some publicity. How about a working group to issue
"Golden Fleece" type awards at each IETF meeting? We
It's not merely that I-D's are already archived, albeit inconveniently
and obscurely.
yes, but IETF isn't (yet) maintaining public archives, so IETF doesn't
(yet) have the liability of breaking its agreement to expire the draft
after six months.
I agree that anyone who expects an I-D to
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not merely that I-D's are already archived, albeit inconveniently
and obscurely.
yes, but IETF isn't (yet) maintaining public archives, so IETF doesn't
(yet) have the liability of breaking its agreement to expire the draft
after six months.
Keith Moore wrote:
I just checked - my browser bookmarks include at least 5 bookmarked references
to the output of search pages. People are going to do it. ;)
I'm not at all sure that we want to go the search engine route, but
it's a trivial matter to make a search engine return URLs
Keith Moore wrote:
[..]
It just means
that IETF is removing the most widely known and most authoritative
source of an I-D after six months.
I think that was my point.
[..]
IETF's current policy makes the I-D series more valuable than it would
be if either I-Ds did not
As someone who was around when the notion of an I-D was created, let
me disagree somewhat. There was a very definite intent to cause I-Ds
to "officially" disappear after a limited time frame.
Steve
As someone who was around when the notion of an I-D was created, let
me disagree somewhat. There was a very definite intent to cause I-Ds
to "officially" disappear after a limited time frame.
I don't doubt that at all. But did folks really think that I-Ds
would completely vanish from the
Keith Moore wrote:
[..]
historically IETF has discouraged even external references to
I-Ds by removing I-Ds from the repository after six months.
Discouraged != Can Prevent, so again I wonder what we're
achieving in this thread.
if IETF starts providing a reliable archive of I-Ds,
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if IETF starts providing a reliable archive of I-Ds, I-Ds will be
referenced more often in external documents
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) -
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if IETF starts providing a reliable archive of I-Ds, I-Ds will be
referenced more often in external documents
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) -
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:31:36 EDT, "J. Noel Chiappa" said:
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) - i.e. you'd have
only a "search page" where you'd have to enter some data and press a button
to get an
At 06:33 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) - i.e. you'd
have
only a "search page" where you'd have to enter some data and press a
button
to get an I-D.
I just love this mythology that "expires in 6 months"
means expunged from all retrievable record in 6 months.
Practically speaking it only ever means "if it hasn't been
picked up by a WG and revised in 6 months it is no longer
of interest to the IETF". Expunging it from the IETF's
official I-D
60 matches
Mail list logo
