SM wrote: > > 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 is up to the author to include a suitable Copyright statement in I-Ds that he uploads/submits to the IETF for publication as I-D. You may find useful information about this here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-3 > > (b) Is it appropriate to use a WG mailing list to discuss a work on > which the IETF does not have change control? Ideally, a WG should keep the focus on the work that it chartered _itself_ to work on. WG chairs are entrusted with significant discretion to contain discussions on the WG-list either within chartered scope or when off-topic at acceptable levels--or occasionally gauge WG consensus for rechartering. > > (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? Copyright must be _granted_ by the author, so it is the other way round. Before an individual submission I-D can be adopted as a WG item, the contributor must grant the necessary rights (to produce derivative works) to the IETF. That's how I understand the second paragraph here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#page-7 While the inclusion of the respective Copyright boilerplate by the author in the the submission is technically sufficient, I would consider it a courtesy to ask the original author for consent anyway, especially if it is about a new I-D (rather than an older RFC). -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf