[rfc-i] Last Call on draft-braden-independent-submission-00.txt

Marshall Eubanks tme at multicasttech.com
Thu Sep 17 14:36:34 PDT 2009


On Sep 17, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:

> I strongly support this draft.
>
> The IRTF will very likely use as much of the final text as possible
> (given that derivative works are permitted :).

And we look forward to seeing that derivative work !

Regards
Marshall

>
> --aaron
>  IRTF chair
>
> Bob Braden wrote:
>> Friends,
>>
>> RFC publication in the Independent Stream has been suspended for  
>> quite a
>> long time, pending resolution of the copyright issues that are  
>> involved.
>>
>> Really, the copyright issues for the Independent Stream were settled
>> more than 2 years ago, in July 2007, by RFC 4846. Section 8 of that
>> document defined the Stream's copyright rules in lawyerly language.  
>> What
>> has been missing is the mechanism to enforce those rules, considering
>> the role of the Trust and its incoming/outgoing rights model.
>>
>> Now, it is very easy to get lost in many Twisty Little Passages on  
>> this
>> topic, and we did repeatedly. At the last IETF meeting, there were
>> numerous meetings and hallway discussions. Members of the RFC Editor
>> staff and of the RFC Editorial Board participated in many of these
>> discussions. The IAB Chair finally led us towards light, saying "it  
>> is
>> really very simple..."
>>
>> The bottom line is that we believe that nearly all the pieces are in
>> place. The major missing pieces are actions/agreements that the Trust
>> needs to make for outgoing rights on Independent Submissions.  A  
>> request
>> must be made to the Trust, and this request must have community  
>> consensus.
>>
>> Joel Halpern and I therefore put together
>> draft-braden-independent-submission-00.txt for discussion.
>> According to recent precedent, it seems that a 30 day Last Call is
>> required. Hopefully, consensus will be reached, and it can be  
>> published
>> as an Informational RFC in the Independent Stream.  Please note  
>> that (we
>> believe that) this document is completely consistent with Section 8  
>> of
>> RFC 4846.
>>
>> The next issue is the venue for discussion of this draft. Since the
>> "community" served by the Independent Submission stream is  
>> potentially a
>> superset of the standards-setting body called the "IETF", the IETF  
>> list
>> did not seem to be an appropriate venue. Rather, the rfc-interest  
>> list
>> seems to be the most appropriate place for this Last Call discussion.
>>
>> We are therefore declaring a 30 day Last Call on the draft named  
>> above.
>>
>> The steps are: community discussion and consensus, publication as  
>> RFC,
>> an announcement of agreement from the Trust, and the create of
>> appropriate boilerplate by the Trust. THEN we can begin publishing in
>> the Independent Submission stream again.  It would help if the Trust
>> actions could be overlapped with (though ultimately contigent upon)  
>> the
>> Last Call discussion.  Let's hope that a month from now it will be  
>> settled.
>>
>> Bob Braden
>> for the RFC Editor
>> and the RFC Editorial Board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list