[There have been some third-party requests to move this discussion from i...@ietf.org to tls@ietf.org; to me this sounds reasonable but maybe wrong, so for the moment I'm cross-posting.]
A former IETF chair writes: > Also it continues to puzzle me why anyone trying to contribute to the > IETF standards process would send email to a WG with an added condition > forbidding derivative works based on that email. Examples of relevant quotes up-thread: "giving the IETF the right to sell all contributions to the AI harvesters seems questionable"; "We need to keep a permanent *immutable* record of appeals"; "IESG mangled a central diagram in the document, spoiling its visual effect and sabotaging communication of the most important information conveyed by the diagram"; "IESG didn't fix its diagram until I sent a DMCA takedown notice". > Such an email could not possibly be of use to the IETF, To disprove an extreme "could not possibly" claim, it suffices to give one counterexample. So here's a counterexample: If >=49% of a WG files objections, then RFC 2418 flatly prohibits the WG from declaring "rough consensus". This is true even if all of the email messages filing those objections opt out from allowing modifications of the message text. That counterexample might itself sound unreasonably extreme, so here's another counterexample representative of current events. RFC 2026 requires ADs etc. to handle various types of complaints. RFC 2026 doesn't make exceptions to this requirement for complaints that have opted out from allowing modifications of the complaint text. Such complaints can certainly be "of use to the IETF". IESG hasn't rejected _all_ of the complaints it has ever received (see below regarding "overturned"), so it's hard to argue that its complaint mechanism has _zero_ value. The value of a complaint mechanism has nothing to do with a copyright grab regarding the text of a complaint. On the contrary: for robust, transparent handling of complaints, IESG should be posting _exact copies_ of the complaints it receives, not of its own modified versions of the complaint text. An AD and IESG have been stalling for four months in handling the actual content of a complaint that I filed. One of the AD's excuses (something about email addresses) was overturned by IESG; unfortunately, the other one wasn't. Specifically: I hadn't been adequately informed about IETF's copyright grab when I filed the complaint, but because of earlier IESG misbehavior I had included a paragraph about integrity rights etc. IESG claimed that this paragraph violated RFC 78. This is fundamentally not true: BCP 78 allows modification opt-outs. As a minor point, the opt-out provision in BCP 78 has a parenthetical note requiring a particular "form" for opt-outs. I wasn't using that form at that point---but this certainly isn't my fault! IETF management fails to make typical IETF participants aware of the copyright grab in the first place, never mind the buried opt-out text; IETF management then ignores a complaint because it doesn't follow the precise form of some buried opt-out text? This is a due-process violation; it's the sort of abuse that historically was the source of many consumer protections in the law and, more to the point, SDOs being required by antitrust law to provide due process. Anyway, after finding the buried opt-out language, I filed a revised complaint using that language. Other people can and should also opt out of allowing modifications for typical comments, objections, and appeals. Again, this is unrelated to the value of that material for IETF. The only text for which IETF needs a modification license is text being contributed to I-Ds or RFCs for the IETF standard track. Unfortunately, we now see an AD repeatedly issuing false claims that my revised complaint is violating IETF rules. > since if (for > example) it suggested additional or changed text for an ongoing draft, > it would be impossible to make use of that text in such a draft. "If you're preparing text for an IETF standard, it's legitimate for IETF LLC to insist on being allowed to modify the text; but if you're just filing comments then there's no reason for this." > Even replying to such an email > with interpolated comments might be considered a derivative work. "You aren't violating copyright law when you quote the specific point you're replying to. See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title17/html/USCODE-2011-title17-chap1-sec107.htm allowing copies for 'fair use' for 'purposes such as criticism, comment' etc., and laying out the criteria for how courts decide what's 'fair', looking at the amount copied, at the nature of the use, etc." > I see no reason why the IETF would suggest boilerplate text for such > email. "... see https://web.archive.org/web/20250306221446/https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf providing instructions specifically to express the situation that 'the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications nor to allow publication as an RFC'." > As for your point that people don't pay attention to the Trust Legal > Provisions, that may be true, but since the Note Well points to BCP 78 > and BCP 78 points to the Trust, there is little more that the IETF can > or should do about people who don't pay attention. Such as people who write, e.g., "I see no reason why the IETF would suggest boilerplate text for such email" without realizing that IETF has _already_ provided boilerplate text to opt out of modifications? ---D. J. Bernstein P.S. For readers bumping into this message who haven't seen the context: Please see https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html to understand what's actually going on here. ===== NOTICES REGARDING IETF ===== It has come to my attention that IETF LLC believes that anyone filing a comment, objection, or appeal is engaging in a copyright giveaway by default, for example allowing IETF LLC to feed that material into AI systems for manipulation. Specifically, IETF LLC views any such material as a "Contribution", and believes that WG chairs, IESG, and other IETF LLC agents are free to modify the material "unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a Contribution (in the form specified by the Legend Instructions)". I am hereby explicitly disallowing such modifications. Regarding "form", my understanding is that "Legend Instructions" currently refers to the portion of https://web.archive.org/web/20250306221446/https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf saying that the situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications nor to allow publication as an RFC" must be expressed in the following form: "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft". That expression hereby applies to this message. I'm fine with redistribution of copies of this message. There are no confidentiality restrictions on this message. The issue here is with modifications, not with dissemination. For other people concerned about what IETF LLC is doing: Feel free to copy these notices into your own messages. If you're preparing text for an IETF standard, it's legitimate for IETF LLC to insist on being allowed to modify the text; but if you're just filing comments then there's no reason for this. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
