SM wrote:
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 is up to the author to include a suitable Copyright statement in
I-Ds that he uploads/submits to the IETF for publication as I-D.
You may find useful information about this here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-3
(b) Is it appropriate to use a WG mailing list to discuss a work on
which the IETF does not have change control?
Ideally, a WG should keep the focus on the work that it chartered
_itself_ to work on. WG chairs are entrusted with significant
discretion to contain discussions on the WG-list either within
chartered scope or when off-topic at acceptable levels--or
occasionally gauge WG consensus for rechartering.
(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?
Copyright must be _granted_ by the author, so it is the other way round.
Before an individual submission I-D can be adopted as a WG item,
the contributor must grant the necessary rights (to produce derivative
works) to the IETF.
That's how I understand the second paragraph here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#page-7
While the inclusion of the respective Copyright boilerplate by the
author in the the submission is technically sufficient,
I would consider it a courtesy to ask the original author for
consent anyway, especially if it is about a new I-D
(rather than an older RFC).
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf