[rfc-i] Copyrights and the IRTF and Independent Stream

SM sm at resistor.net
Mon Aug 17 02:23:51 PDT 2009

Hi Joel,
At 14:21 16-08-2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>I am not sure I follow your reasoning.

Maybe my message would have been easier to read if there was an 
executive summary along the lines of:

   1. What are the decision makers trying to achieve through copyrights?

   2. Is the IETF Trust well equipped to handle the copyrights at 
this point in time?

>There are, as far as I can tell, two arguments being made.
>The first argument is that the trust can not handle anything other 
>than IETF documents.  Such an argument has to be based on the Trust 
>documents.  (While John and I disagree, he was quite careful and 
>clear that he bases his argument on the trust documents themselves.
>There is a subsidiary argument that says that the IETF has not asked 
>the trust to handle these documents.  Whether I buy that argument or 
>not is irrelevant.  The plan, as discussed, includes getting I-Ds 
>approved through an IETF last call which indicates how these stream 
>documents should be handled.  As such, teh IETF will also have 
>indicated its approval.

I am not going to dispute whether the IETF Trust has the rights at 
this stage of the discussion.  If IETF approval was the only 
requirement, this question should have been discussed on the IETF mailing list.

It will be interesting to see whether the IETF Trust wants to take 
the responsibility for the non-publication of RFCs from the 
Independent Stream since over eight months.

>There is a second argument that the trust has some difficulty 
>getting something done.  I don't see the problem in that regard, but 
>John does.  You do not appear to be making that argument, so I will 
>not try to rebut it.

I am not making that argument at this stage.  I could comment on that 
with a few examples:

   (i) An appeal was filed with the IESG on August 29, 2006.  A 
response was posted on October 16, 2006.

   (ii) An appeal was filed with the IESG on June 13, 2008.  A 
response was posted on July 7, 2008.

   (iii) An appeal was filed with the IAB on February 8, 2006.  The 
IAB responded on March 2, 2006.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list