Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2018-12-11 09:41, Heather Flanagan wrote: > <snip> > > > > Hello all, > > > > In general, I think having an open standard normatively reference > > paywalled material is a terrible idea. That said, at the IESG meeting in > > Bangkok, we discussed this a bit. Ekr offered an interesting proposal > > that would have this kind of reference be treated in a fashion similar > > to IPR declarations. I am waiting to see a more concrete proposal along > > these lines--and discuss it with the other streams to see if it can > > apply to all--before I put anything in a future style guide. > > I think we all agree it's a terrible idea, but the problem isn't new > and is covered for standards track documents by RFC2026 section 7.1 > "Use of External Specifications". Payment isn't mentioned, but one > of the problem areas then (and ever since) was membership-required > documents, which is much the same thing as a paywall. Some entities have an click-through EULA which attempts to IPR constrained on the reader. In other words, one might become tainted by the entities IPR if you click through, and for many people, they can't do this without their (corporate) lawyer's agreement. So, treating it like IPR is not quite enough. It's like an IPR claim that is completely vague. > A register of external specifications and how to access them seems > like a good idea, as long as it remains consistent with the intent > of RFC2026. Note that RFC2026 requires that external *proprietary* > specs adhere to the IETF IPR disclosure policy. Let me just say that I'm very upset about such things, and I think that we have totally failed at open-stand.org. I know that IAB is aware of my feelings, and I've told something will be done. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
