--On Sunday, June 08, 2014 08:50 +0200 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/8/2014 8:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >> Murray, you didn't mention whether there is any ongoing >> discussion in dmarc.org and, if so, how Hector can participate >> there. > > That's because Hector is already active in the IETF's DMARC > discussion list, which was an addressee of your note, as it is > of this one... And, because I'm still confused about change control and decision processes (see below), I deliberately asked about dmarc.org, not about the IETF's DMARC discussion list. >> If there are no further discussions there and dmarc.org >> is turning change control over to the IETF, it might be >> helpful for people here to know that. > > Discussions continue. > > To my non-expert eyes, the IPR statements in the base I-D spec: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/ > > is standard IETF boilerplate and already shows the IETF Trust > as holding copyright... To my non-expert eyes, informed by many years of IETF IPR discussions and a recent rereading of the IETF Trust policies, the copyright is important if someone wants to reproduce the document (not at issue here, AFICT) or if the IETF decides create a WG that intended to use the work as a starting point, possibly forking it. As far as I know, no one has suggested the latter. The copyright would be equally irrelevant if the IETF decided to ignore DMARC (except as a learning experience) and adopt some other technology. I asked about voluntary handoff of change control; I don't see want your response about copyright has to do with that. I hope we are not heading into another round in which the IETF is asked to adopt another technology and standardize it but told that it can't make substantive changes in that technology because it has already been discussed, adopted, and deployed elsewhere but that possibility is precisely why the question of change control is relevant. Copyright in a document not produced in the IETF does not appear to be. best, john