Hi,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:20 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hello,
This is the second time in a year that I came across a case where a non-IETF
group sought to maintain change control over a draft. In the first case,
several iterations of the draft were posted and the author solicited
comments on an IETF mailing list.
(a) By making an IETF Submission, is an author allowing the IETF to have
change control on the work?
It depends. That's why there are different versions of the boilerplate
depending on what rights the submitter is granting to the IETF.
(b) Is it appropriate to use a WG mailing list to discuss a work on
which the IETF does not have change control?
Generally, yes. There's nothing wrong is such discussion if there
appears to be a WG consensus to do so. You refer to this hypothetical
submission as a "work", which is a technically correct copyright term,
but I believe you are thinking of it as a standards specification or a
part of or an amendment to such a specification. But it can just be
that the submitter wanted to use the draft format as a convenient way
to make a statement to the WG, presumably a statement relevant to what
the WG is doing. In such a case, the whole point would be
consideration and, if appropriate, discussion of that statement in the
WG.
(c) If the IETF Submission is covered by the WG Charter, can the WG
enhance the original contribution in accordance with the IETF
Standards Process by adopting it as a WG work item?
It depends. That's why there are different versions of the
boilerplate. If the submitter has denied the IETF permission to
produce derivative works, then it seems improper to attempt to adopt
that draft as a WG draft. That's because being a WG draft implies WG
change control. However, the ideas in the draft could be used in a WG
draft.
Regards,
-sm
Thanks,
Donald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf