ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

2016-03-26 15:00:49
On 27/03/2016 03:17, John C Klensin wrote:


--On Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:36 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:

If the documents clearly define the term "design team" as
teams that are created by a decision in an IETF process, I
have very few problem extending "IETF contribution" to
contributions to the design team.

If (as I've sometimes seen) everyone who meets to hash out an
idea wants to call themselves + their friends is a "design
team", then I see a problem with the extension.

The lunchtime "bar BOF" would be a nice test case - arranged
by WG chairs over the WG (or IETF non-WG) mailing list, it
would be an IETF activity with IETF contribution; arranged
between friends on the way out of the preceding WG meeting, it
would (I think) not be.

I think this is a good summary of a reasonable way to draw the
line.  

I agree. In terms of wording in the draft, I'll repeat that
referring to RFC 2418 seems appropriate (rather than relying
on duplicate definitions of terms). To be exact, perhaps:

      Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
      electronic communications, which are addressed to:

      o the IETF plenary session,
      o any IETF working group [BCP25] or portion thereof,
      o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,
      o any IETF design team [BCP25] or portion thereof,
      o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
      ...

(I intentionally deleted "-sanctioned". As far as I can see it's
redundant and confuses the issue.)

Incidentally, does the "the IESG, or any member thereof" cover
IETF Directorates, which are established by individual IESG members?

  Brian

For the second case, I do note that there have been
attempts by non-participants to define the second sort of group
as a design team in order to give them (or the WG Chairs)
leverage over membership and participation.  But I'd hope to
keep that separate... and a WG Chair could, subject to appeal,
designate such a group as a design team if it seemed to be
getting out of hand, so maybe there is no problem in practice.

     john





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>