ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2016-04-04 08:14:46
Hi Lars,
Reading trough this, I think it may be worthwhile that the IRTF creates an RFC 
that includes an applicability statement of BCP79 to IRTF activities, instead 
of trying to include the IRSG and its terminology into this already confusing 
document.
(minor point: I prefer to keep the definitions in alphabetic order: jumping 
around on an initial read is a small burden compared to the difficulty of 
finding a definition in an unordered list when reading deep-down details.)
Stephan





On 4/4/16, 09:37, "ietf on behalf of Eggert, Lars" 
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

Hi,

I mostly ready this from the perspective of the IRTF, since this is intended 
to also apply to us. I found that that wasn't terribly clear from the current 
text.

Lars

Section 1., paragraph 0:
1. Definitions

 Sorting these definitions alphabetically is not really helpful to the
 reader. Could you order them such that terms are defined before being
 referred to, or at least try?


Section 1., paragraph 3:
   b. "Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
      RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity,
      in each case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process
      or that is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has
      adopted this definition.

What do you mean by "this definition"? Also, it's not clear what
"activity of an Alternate Stream" is supposed to convey. I think this
intends to capture work occurring in IRTF RGs, but it's a pretty
indirect way of stating this.


Section 1., paragraph 4:
      Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
      electronic communications, which are addressed to:

 The list below does not include IRTF mailing lists or meetings.


Section 1., paragraph 9:
   e. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
      individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
      lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
      initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general
      designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but
      solely to the extent of such participation.

 For clarity, I would also call out the IRTF and its RGs here.


Section 1., paragraph 10:

   f. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as
      part of the IETF Standards Process.  These are also referred to as
      "IETF Stream Documents" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844.

 What about RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are intended as contributions
 to IRTF activities? It would be useful to maybe add "...part of the
 IETF Standards Process and related activities" to make this clearer.


Section 1., paragraph 11:
   g. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in
      any of the settings described in the above definition of
      Contribution.  The IETF Standards Process may include
      participation in activities and publication of documents that are
      not directed toward the development of IETF standards or
      specifications, such as the development and publication of
      informational documents.

 I'd again explicitly call out the alternate streams here. And maybe
 this document is meant for lawyers and I am not one, but having a
 definition called "IETF Standards Process" that also includes all of
 our non-standard-setting activities is confusing.


Section 1., paragraph 17:
   m. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF.  RFCs are
      published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified.
      (See [RFC2026] Section 2.1)

 Might want to mention the existence of errata.


Section 5.5., paragraph 0:
5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure

 It's been running code on the IRTF side to be very OK with not having
 license terms included, esp. if it significantly delays the official
 filing of the disclosure, since RGs don't set standards and therefore
 don't really need to consider licensing terms. Not clear if that
 should be discussed here.


Section 11., paragraph 2:
   The legal rules that apply to documents in Alternate Streams are
   established by the managers of those Alternate Streams as defined in
   [RFC 4844]. (i.e., the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet
   Research Steering Group (IRSG) and Independent Submission Editor).

 Is the IRSG really the manager of the IRTF stream? I thought it was
 the IRTF chair, but I can't find the definitive answer in either 4844,
 5742 or 5743...



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