Hi, On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:20 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > This is the second time in a year that I came across a case where a non-IETF > group sought to maintain change control over a draft. In the first case, > several iterations of the draft were posted and the author solicited > comments on an IETF mailing list. > > (a) By making an IETF Submission, is an author allowing the IETF to have > change control on the work? It depends. That's why there are different versions of the boilerplate depending on what rights the submitter is granting to the IETF. > (b) Is it appropriate to use a WG mailing list to discuss a work on > which the IETF does not have change control? Generally, yes. There's nothing wrong is such discussion if there appears to be a WG consensus to do so. You refer to this hypothetical submission as a "work", which is a technically correct copyright term, but I believe you are thinking of it as a standards specification or a part of or an amendment to such a specification. But it can just be that the submitter wanted to use the draft format as a convenient way to make a statement to the WG, presumably a statement relevant to what the WG is doing. In such a case, the whole point would be consideration and, if appropriate, discussion of that statement in the WG. > (c) If the IETF Submission is covered by the WG Charter, can the WG > enhance the original contribution in accordance with the IETF > Standards Process by adopting it as a WG work item? It depends. That's why there are different versions of the boilerplate. If the submitter has denied the IETF permission to produce derivative works, then it seems improper to attempt to adopt that draft as a WG draft. That's because being a WG draft implies WG change control. However, the ideas in the draft could be used in a WG draft. > Regards, > -sm Thanks, Donald _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf