--On Friday, August 9, 2024 15:13 -0400 John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> It appears that S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>> The copyright notice in the draft points to "IETF Trust and the
>> persons identified as the document authors". The IETF Trust
>> grants a license, for outside use, to copy, display, and
>> distribute a Contribution in full and without modification. It
>> seems easier for the IEEE to contact the persons identified as
>> the document authors if it wishes to maintain the protocol
>> specified in RFC 8110.
>
> As we noted in other messages, the authors of this draft are the
> same as the authors of RFC 8110. They can give the IEEE whatever
> rights they want without the IETF or the Trust doing anything.
John,
I agree completely and, if the IPR in the RFC were the only issue, I
might be suggesting that this exercise/ document is a waste of time.
However, confusion about which documents constitute the current
standard and/or who is responsible for it is not good for the
Internet and a document that updates the original to do an explicit
handoff of authority is probably best way to avoid such confusion.
I think there would be an IPR issue that would presumably involve the
Trust, a different document, and some controversy, if IEEE came to us
and said "we are unwilling to take this on unless the IETF transfers
whatever rights it has in the document and its specifications to us".
But I have seen no indication that has occurred and, unless things
have changed very significantly since I had a role on the IEEE SAB,
such a demand for exclusive control would be foreign to the IEEE's
own principles (just as it would be to ours if the situation were
reversed).
So I am having trouble figuring out what, other than exercises in
amateur lawyering, the issues are that are causing pushback to moving
forward with this.
best,
john
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
