Hi -
> From: "John C Klensin" <john@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:40 PM
> Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
...
> What gives your WG the ability to function is 5.4, where the
> Trust gives back to the IETF participants what the Trust
> received under 5.1 and 5.3. But they can't give back what they
> don't have, so, if your WG is required to derive its permission
> to do work from 5.4 and a previous author takes a walk rather
> than making the 5.1 guarantees and 5.3 transfers _to the
> Trust_...
...
Ok, so if my understanding was incorrect, at what point must we
stop work until this is corrected? (I can virtually guarantee that
we will not get explicit permission from every individual named
in an acknowledgement section of one of the antecedants of
the documents we're updating. Paraphrase the whole thing?
Ain't gonna happen.)
a) We cannot submit any more I-Ds until this is fixed
b) We can continue to submit I-Ds, but cannot hand off to the IESG
c) We can hand off to the IESG, but not do IETF last call
d) We can do IETF last call, but not hand it over to the RFC editor
e) We can hand it over to the RFC editor, but not actually publish
I'd be willing to wager that, in its current mood, the WG would simply
disband rather than deal with any of these.
z) We stop updating our documents, hand over an existing I-D without
the offensive IPR language, and hope that the IESG requires no
changes, and use RFC errata to deal with the (minor) problems
that we know exist in that I-D.
Somehow this seems totally bogus, since the "authors" were all
editors working under the direction of the working group to produce
a work for the working group. If anything, the transfer should be from
the WG (or the IETF) to the trust, not from the people who were high-
stress typists for the WG. Likewise, the various contributors whose
words went into the collaborative blender were doing so under the
long-standing NOTE WELL provisions, so getting their permission
again seems, well, pointless.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf