That's much clearer, and to my mind more worrying.
Any discussion outside of the IETF is outside the IETF, whether it's within
a group, or a list, or a pub on the corner, or whatever. The IETF surely
cannot impose its IPR rules to the world at large.
If the results of that discussion are later entered as a contribution to
the IETF, the IETF's IPR rules apply to the person contributing, not to the
originator.
If the list discussion needs to happen under the IETF rules, the list needs
to be formally an IETF one.
Note that I'm not concerned with the specifics of whether this list ought
to exist or whether the goals are defined - just whether an non-IETF list
should be under IETF rules.
On 4 Feb 2015 21:02, "Kathleen Moriarty"
<kathleen(_dot_)moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
wrote:
So you want this list to be under IETF rules, because it's intended that
IETF contributions will happen from it, but you don't want it to be an
IETF
list, because people might treat it as being IETF contributions.
My request was in the list of steps I provided to Hosnieh and that was
just to ensure that those contributing to a draft outside of IETF
understand that the NoteWell applies to content on that draft to be
contributed. It's important for this to be understood by
contributors. My request was for her to work with a small group and I
never suggested a list. I sent her this list several weeks ago along
with a private note to help her with next steps. The list I sent her
is the same that I posted.
I'm going to get back to reading drafts and not answer for others in
this discussion.
Best regards,
Kathleen
I see there's a distinction, I'm not clear why it was drawn, but I'll
take
your word for it that it's not as political as it sounds.
On 4 Feb 2015 20:27, "Kathleen Moriarty" <
kathleen(_dot_)moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi Dave,
I didn't read this thread the same way you did. I read it as Ted
pointing out that the Notewell will be important for contributors to
understand applies for any submission that comes to the IETF.
You can look at the SecAuth archive to see why it was shutdown. Many
were glad as the work was taking too long to become focused into an
achievable set of goals. A push to go back to the drawing board was
needed. If it's an IETF list, many feel they have to follow it and
the work wasn't ready for that yet. We'll re-evaluate the proposal
when they have had time to narrow the scope and figure out what
problem they want to solve most.
Best regards,
Kathleen
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Dave Cridland
<dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Do I understand this right? The original mailing list was shut down by
the
IETF, and folks are now complaining that the third party list isn't an
IETF
one? Seriously?
On 4 Feb 2015 14:29, "Tobias Gondrom"
<tobias(_dot_)gondrom(_at_)gondrom(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On 04/02/15 21:12, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Tobias Gondrom <
tobias(_dot_)gondrom(_at_)gondrom(_dot_)org>
wrote:
just fyi: the mailing-list does on its sign-up page (in the first
line)
make the explicit statement to operate under the IETF
Notewell:https://mail.rozanak.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnauth
That's precisely what I would advise doing in this situation. It
might
be worth adding that the list is informal and is not sponsored by the
IETF,
though; otherwise people might get the impression that it's an
official
IETF
mailing list. You should also disclose whether or not the list is
being
archived, although since it's not an IETF mailing list, whether you
do
so is
not up to us. If the list is not archived, however, it might be
difficult
and involve a painful discovery process if for some reason the Note
Well had
to be enforced in a lawsuit. So while keeping an archive places an
additional burden on Hosnieh, it is probably a win for other
participants.
(And yes, I realize you were talking to the other Ted... :)
Just fyi: I am not the administrator of the mailing-list. I just
happened
to sign-up and noticed that the notewell is/was already there on the
sign-up
page. It seems the new list only got needed up as the Sec AD
(Kathleen)
shut
down the previous IETF BOF mailing-list.
And to answer your second question: it appears the new list is being
archived, as is also a basic mailman function.
Best regards, Tobias
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
--
Best regards,
Kathleen