Eric:
The authors has essentially done that through their IPR
statement. Royalty free license will be available only if the
document becomes a standards-track RFC.
Russ
At 02:32 PM 2/20/2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
Russ, et al,
There is a precedent that may need to be established here that
is not relevant to the TLS Working Group (therefore their omission in
the CC list above).
The text to that Bill refers to actually says the following:
"These notices may not be used with any standards-track document or
with most working group documents, except as discussed in Section 7.3
below, since the IETF must retain change control over its documents
and the ability to augment, clarify and enhance the original IETF
Contribution in accordance with the IETF Standards Process."
Further, in section 7.3, RFC 3978 says the following:
"Occasionally a Contributor may not want to grant publication rights
or the right to produce derivative works before finding out if an
IETF Contribution has been accepted for development in the IETF
Standards Process. In these cases the Contributor may include the
Derivative Works Limitation described in Section 5.2 and the
Publication Limitation described in Section 5.3 in their IETF
Contribution. A working group can discuss the Internet-Draft with
the aim to decide if it should become a working group document, even
though the right to produce derivative works or to publish the IETF
Contribution as an RFC has not yet been granted. If the IETF
Contribution is accepted for development the Contributor must then
resubmit the IETF Contribution without the limitation notices before
a working group can formally adopt the IETF Contribution as a working
group document."
Because this document has not been accepted by any working group,
the authors are perfectly within their rights to make changing wording
of the derivative rights section contingent on the outcome of the IETF
last call.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com]
--> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:22 PM
--> To: Bill Fenner; Steven M. Bellovin
--> Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; tls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to
--> Proposed Standard
-->
--> I misunderstood the original question. I'll get it fixed
--> or withdraw
--> the Last Call.
-->
--> Russ
-->
-->
--> At 12:38 AM 2/19/2006, Bill Fenner wrote:
-->
--> > >Can we have a Proposed Standard
--> > >without the IETF having change control?
--> >
--> >No. RFC3978 says, in section 5.2 where it describes the derivative
--> >works limitation that's present in draft-santesson-tls-ume, "These
--> >notices may not be used with any standards-track document".
--> >
--> > Bill
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf