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

Aaron Falk falk at bbn.com
Thu Sep 17 13:44:53 PDT 2009

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 :).

  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

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list