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

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Mon Sep 14 17:06:01 PDT 2009

To help start the consensus process on this list, I would like to
explicitly reiterate my email on another thread that I support this
draft to get the independent stream publishing again (along with minor
tweaks that may come up to improve the draft, such as the one just
proposed by Joel).


On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Bob Braden <braden at isi.edu> 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

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list