Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

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

 



Joe,

While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top.  Specifically...

--On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch
<touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi, Russ,
> 
> FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues:
> 
> 1) all the IDs before March 1994
> 	which should not be published at all until
> 	permission is given (opt-in)

While I agree, I think that most of the reason for that has to
do with implicit or explicit IETF commitments to individuals
rather than legal constraints.  That is not to say the legal
constraints aren't there.  IANAL, much less a judge, and have no
opinion on that which anyone else should pay attention to.  

Suppose that, as a modified form of opt-out under the latest
proposed policy, you were to send a note to the IESG asking that
all of your old I-Ds be taken down from the public archive on
the grounds that having them public is abusive of commitments
you have good reason to believe were made to you.    If the IESG
said "nope, not abusive enough", you could then either appeal
(probably a more constructive way of airing things under our
rules than involving the legal process) or claim that the IETF
had no rights to keep a document posted to which you believe you
have retained copyright and get a DMCA take-down request issued.
Such a request would give the IESG and IETF Trust the
"opportunity" to consider how much risk they wanted to assume to
keep your documents posted and possibly to discuss that with the
community.  Sadly, they might consider the odds that you would
actually choose to sue in their risk assessment (see below).

That wouldn't let you made document availability decisions by
default for anyone else (e.g., by forcing opt-in), but would,
IMO, focus the discussion in a way that increasingly heated
comments on the IETF list would not.

>...
> And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by
> a court.

Well, it would be determined by a court only if someone felt
strongly enough about a particular document or set of documents
to go to the expense of going down that path.  I am unhappy with
the current IPR regime, unhappy enough with current practices
that some things that would have been posted as I-Ds under the
policies as I understood them a decade or two ago just don't
make it into the system.  Perhaps that is A Good Thing, perhaps
not, but one of the inevitable consequences of an IPR policy
that gives the IETF more and more discretion over what to do
with ideas and "contributions" that aren't turned into standards
is that it will see fewer such contributions.  Only the
community can judge whether that is a good tradeoff -- a
judgment that is made more difficult by not being able to
ascertain what it isn't seeing.   But I'm not nearly unhappy
enough to try to drag the IETF into court over the issue,
partially because I know that doing so wouldn't cause the
documents to go away even if I won.

If no one feels mean-tempered enough to launch such a court
case, then the policy won't be settled by a judge, it will stand
because no one challenges it.

   john



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