--On Thursday, January 08, 2009 02:49:16 PM -0800 Fred Baker
<fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
From my perspective, the best approach involves keeping the general case
simple. The documents that have been transferred outside the IETF in the
past five years is a single digit number, a tenth of a percent of all
RFCs if not a smaller fraction. From my perspective, the simplest
solution to the transfer issue is to ask the people relevant to a
document for which transfer has been suggested whether they have an issue
with transferring it, rather than asking every document author his or her
opinion on the vast majority of documents, which will never be
transferred. Remember that this boilerplate affects internet drafts, but
most internet drafts are discussion documents - a fraction of internet
drafts even become RFCs, and a small fraction of RFCs are transferred
elsewhere.
The difficulty with this approach is that it allows authors to decide
whether to grant us the rights we require until the point at which we wish
to exercise them, rather than requiring that they grant those rights before
we take their contribution and turn it into a widely-deployed Internet
standard.
I don't believe we need to go back and ask every author of every published
RFC and I-D to grant the additional rights, and I don't believe we need to
have a system that blocks the submission and/or progress of current
documents solely because they are built on earlier documents which were
published before the new rules came into effect. However, I do think if we
want the additional rights required by RFC5378, we need to require they be
granted at the time that a document is submitted.
It sounds to me like the trustees' proposal does a reasonable job of
balancing the conflicting goals and achieving something useful.
-- Jeff
As to the other issues that 5378 addresses, I suspect that a better
approach will be to fall back to 3978/4748/2026 temporarily and move to
5378-bis when it comes rather than to use this very general workaround to
5378's issues until 5378-bis is resolved. 3978 etc worked just fine for
most purposes...
If we reach consensus that the solution to the problem is to change 5378,
rather than to semi-permanently adopt a workaround such as the trustees
have proposed, then I would not object to falling back to the older rules
until the issue is resolved.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf