[rfc-i] LC for draft-braden-independent-submission-00

Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= ah at tr-sys.de
Tue Sep 15 14:41:29 PDT 2009


I also support this draft.


However, considering a typical flow of events in the evolution
of an I-D that ends up in the Independent Submission stream,
I would appreciate if it would be possible to put a bit more
emphasis on the necessary overlap and compatibility with the
rules for IETF stream submissions:

[[ Note that, for simplicity, I disregard below the existence
   of the other, 'minority' streams (IAB, IRTF). ]]

Some draft will be submitted to a WG for consideration.
It may happen then that the WG is chartered narrowly and does
not adopt the work, or that the material is presented mainly
for educational purposes, to distribute knowledge on existing
propriatary solutions for a problem area that the WG is
chartered to work on.
In other cases, a WG might be disbanded but work originally
targetted to it shall anyway be brought to the knowledge of the
Internet engineering community at large.
Or the overloaded IESG does not have the cycles to sponsor a
specific draft as an Individual Submission on the IETF stream
and redirects the author(s) to the Independent Submission stream
after the draft already has been discussed in the IETF.
Etc., etc.

In such cases, it is likely not always clear from the beginning
which path a draft will follow, i.e. which stream it might end in.

However, the draft has to be submitted with boilerplate text
accommodating the requirements of any stream it might end in.
This only makes sense if the rights to be granted are as similar
as possible in all cases, and can be covered by a single instance
of boilerplate text.  Since it is very unlikely that a draft
submitted to the Independent Submission stream will subsequently
be re-targetted to the IETF stream, the rights to be granted
for Independent Submission stream should be a superset of the
rights granted for the IETF stream, or even better, be the same.
(In the case of a proper superset, additional rights could be
granted to the IETF Trust as soon as the Independent Submission
stream target has been fixed, but the converse does not make
much sense -- revoking rights once granted.)

The current Ind. Subm. Rights draft already has adopted much of
the rules and procedures regarding patents and patent applications
set in force for the IETF stream.

Clearly, to keep the Ind. Subm. stream *independent* from the IETF,
the rules and procedures should not be tied blindly to current or
future IETF rules and/or procedures.

However, I would appreciate if wording could be added in order to
make it a distinguished goal for the Trustees to establish legal
boilerplate text for the Ind. Subm. stream as compatible as
possible with the one applicable for common IETF targeted drafts.

I have leave it to native English speakers with the necessary
background of legalese experience to identify the proper places
in the draft, and the appropriate wording that needs to be added
for this purpose.

Kind regards,
  Alfred HÎnes.


P.S. -- editorials:

a) I suggest making precise and uniform use of the terms also
   adopted in the headers & boilerplates IAB draft (et al.),
   and always talk about the "Independent Submission Stream"
   or "Independent Submission RFC Stream".
   (Some parts of the draft currently use the shortened form
   "Independent Stream".)

b) Typo in Section 1, 2nd para:   s!the the!the!

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah at TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list