I agree with John, and expect that if the IETF Trust will now be allowed
to take an expired ID, and do with it want it wants outside of the
standards process, the result will (appropriately) be to have more
finely tuned IPR declarations, which make it clear that the declaration
is targeted at the specific standard in question, and is not applicable
beyond that, inside or outside of the IETF standardization process. As
far as I can tell, there is, and should be, nothing that prohibits IPR
holders from making such refined declarations, and such declarations
will easily meet the requirements for being a valid IPR declaration to
the IETF. IMO this simply underscores the valid separation of patent
rights and copyright rights in the IETF process, that some still seem to
be confused over.
Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:23 PM
To: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 4:48 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
However, the IPR WG, in its wisdom, has concluded, in some
that was changed fairly late in the game, that the IETF
get enough rights in I-Ds to authorize all sorts of
of them and their content, with no time limit.
You have claimed this before, but I don't understand it. RFC
2026 says that the IETF receives a fairly broad license to
it wants with all contributions, see section 10.3.1:
I believe that, subject to the "you can't really use this"
disclaimers allowed by 2026, the IETF has the right to do
just about anything it wants or needs to do with text in an
I-D, active or expired, as long as doing that is part of the
standards process. I agree that 2026 is clear about that, as
were precedents before it. And, referring to one of your
earlier notes, I think that includes pulling text out of an
I-D that has been expired for years and years and
incorporating it into a new I-D, publishing it as an RFC, etc.
I also believe it is absolutely necessary for the IETF to have
those rights. I did not intend my note to say anything else
and hope I've been consistent about that over the years.
Is your objection that the Trust is now authorized to grant uses
outside of the IETF process?
I believe that there is nothing in 2026 that allows the IETF,
ISOC, or the trust to grant any rights, or any sort, to
anyone to do anything with text in I-Ds (or other
contributions) outside of use _by the IETF_ (i.e., as part of
the standards process). The ability of the Trust to grant
such rights originates with assumptions about the Trust
itself and, in detail, in the recent "inbound" and "outbound"
I believe that the approach taken in those documents wrt
I-Ds, especially expired I-Ds, is wrong and that we will
eventually regret it. YMMD and I am clearly in the minority
on that subject.
That said, because I believe the IETF has the absolute right
to pick up prior I-D text at any point and reuse it, I
believe that disclosure statements that were made while the
I-D was active have to be retained for that long, i.e., to a
of forever. Ted's comments about how meaningful those earlier
disclosure statements are and for how long are very much
relevant to this, but I don't think change the retention period.
And, even if my "no new disclosures for expired I-Ds"
proposal were adopted, I think it would be reasonable to
permit comments that provided explanations about licensing or
release status or forward pointers to disclosures associated
with more recent or superceding documents.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list