Re: Document Action: 'US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and HMAC-SHA)' to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



How about updating the document with the new license, and ask for a
IETF-wide last call on it?

If anyone has a problem with a license that make it possible for
everyone to use the code in the document, they can tell the IESG the
reasons.

I really don't understand why making this change to the license would
be such a big deal.  It seems as if you are saying that authors
contributing to IETF documents are not entitled to make their work
available under a more permissive license than the IETF has decided
on.  Since the IETF policy is too restrictive to permit use of the
source code in free software, some authors may want to address that
issue in their documents.  The IETF should not object to that, in my
opinion.  Again, compare the license in RFC 3492 or RFC 4027, they
were approved by the IESG fairly recently.  (Or even RFC 4398 for an
even fresher example, it has been approved, and is in AUTH48.)

Thanks.

Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> My point is only that while we have an active WG looking at the question
> of license terms for the use of text from RFCs, it wouldn't be
> right for the IESG to unilaterally approve a new policy, even for a
> single draft. I don't believe the approved text does set a new
> policy.
>
>    Brian
>
> Tony Hansen wrote:
>> And *as* one of the authors of the proposed-RFC in question, I find the
>> statement even more curious. Given the objections, I was proposing
>> different text that would have aligned the statement with text already
>> found in other RFCs already published.
>> 	Tony Hansen
>> 	tony@xxxxxxx
>> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>    Brian> Tony, That would have amounted to the author and IESG
>>>    Brian> deciding to change the IETF's policy on derivative works,
>>>    Brian> which would have been way out of line, especially in view
>>>    Brian> of the ongoing debate about this point in the ipr WG.
>>>
>>>Had this sentence been added by the author it would not have changed
>>>anything about IETF policy.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]