ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Concerns about draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05 becoming a Best Current Practice

2013-12-31 09:49:21
SM:

As I said in my original posting, I am most concerned about my 3rd and 4th 
comments.  I'll respond to them.

3) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that the IETF is working 
toward a global Internet.  That is lost in the revised text, and I consider 
this a major problem with the new text.

There was an IESG Comment where it was suggested to align the text with that 
RFC 3935.  I made the change in response to that comment.  I posted a message 
to the IETF mailing list about the change (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84990.html ).  I took 
the comment posted by Dave Crocker into consideration (re. consensus) in 
trying to figure out the text change to suggest.

There is already text in the draft which mentions that:

 "IETF participants devise solutions for the Internet that meet the
  needs of diverse technical and operational environments."

How is the IETF working towards a global Internet?  I would say that it is by 
devising solutions which meet the needs of diverse environments; it would be 
difficult to meet those needs if the IETF is not open to competent input from 
any source.

The IETF develops open standards for one global Internet, providing maximum 
interoperability and scalability, and avoiding specialized protocols in 
different places.

4) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that IETF participants 
follow the IPR rules in BCP 9.  That is lost in the revised text.  Perhaps 
it belongs in a separate guideline, but it should be recovered.

According to the "Note Well" ( http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ) the 
IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79.  In my opinion it is better to keep 
the guidelines of conduct separate from legal rules.  Jari Arkko mentioned 
that he was okay with that (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00279.html ).  An 
IETF participant will have to read BCP 79 anyway.

BCP 79 is the proper reference.

Following the IPR rules is an obligation for all IETF participants.  It was in 
RFC 3184, and I think we need to keep in this document.

Russ