fwiw - I agree with Bert's suggestions and worries --- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@xxxxxxxxxx> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx Cc: Carl Malamud <carl@xxxxxxxxx>, Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: Adminrest: created IPR Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:30:12 +0100 Inline, personal opinion > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > Harald Tveit Alvestrand > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 10:34 > To: Henrik Levkowetz; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: Carl Malamud; Scott Bradner > Subject: Re: Adminrest: created IPR > > --On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz > <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > What about this text, (added to 2.2.6): > > > > "As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ensure that any > > contracts for IASA clearly designate that any software, databases, > > and websites developed should be available to the IETF with no I guess you/we mean "specifically developed for IETF", right? We do not need to require that if a contracted offers exisiting software that they developed but that fits our needs, do we? > > restriction by the contractor. Software should be open source and "should be open source" ?? It does leave open that it is not mandatory. But it still sounds as a very strong statement. If a contractor develops specific software for us, I'd be OK if we can get it at any time for IETF use, but I am not sure we should require it to be or become open source should we? > > data should be made available to the IETF in machine-readable > > format, also in cases where it may be inadvisable to make the data > > openly available." > > We have a bad experience where we are not getting access to our database backups (in order to just test if it is complete and if we can create a new working environment in case of a disaster). That seems bad. So I'd like to see in those contracts that IETF can get a copy at any time they want for whatever reason they want. Not sure that needs to be in the BCP. It seems basic stuff to me when you do contracts. > this works for me (my only problem is stylistic - it's > somewhat long for a principle, so may fit better in the > "details" sections, if a place can be found for it). > I'd prefer to keep it to a (short) principle if possible. Bert _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf