headers
graham.travers | 1 Jul 2002 11:13
Favicon

RE: IPR and I-D boilerplate

Peter,

"...there were pretty categoric statements made during the last iteration of
this thread that
a Drafts archive *was* going up "soon". Has this idea been shelved,
canceled, delayed or absorbed by the event horizon surrounding the
infinitely dense Black Hole that is the intellectual property mess? ;-)"

Try http://ietfreport.isoc.org/

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   graham.travers <at> bt.com
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John Stracke | 1 Jul 2002 16:48

RE: Pursuing question of mime types in W3C specifications and nextactions

>>Why would the process be any different for the W3C than for anybody
>>else? It is perfectly possible to have a MIME registration RFC that
>>references a non-IETF document for the actual syntax of the format.
>>For example, see RFC-3240.
>
>Some W3C groups are trying to follow a finding[1] of the W3C's Technical
>Architecture Group[2], to include the media type registration form
>(for an IETF tree media type) within their specifications[3].

I'm not asking why the W3C would want it.  Why would *the IETF* create a different process for W3C documents?
Any time you've got multiple processes to do the same thing, you've got a risk of abuse.

John Stracke
francis <at> incentivesystems.com
Incentive Systems, Inc.
http://www.incentivesystems.com
Stuck using Exchange, .signature under construction
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Joe Touch | 1 Jul 2002 17:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate


Peter Deutsch wrote:
> g'day,
> 
> 
> John C Klensin wrote:
> . . . 
> 
>>Please, folks, I am _not_ trying to restart the discussion of
>>"archival" I-Ds.  Personally, I remain opposed to the idea, and
>>I believe that they should be treated as drafts and discarded.
>>If they result in an RFC, then the RFC should stand on its own.
>>Nor do I think that there is any quick fix to the patent
>>situation, least of all anything like this.
> 
> 
> Well, without repeating the entire thread yet again there were pretty
> categoric statements made during the last iteration of this thread that
> a Drafts archive *was* going up "soon". Has this idea been shelved,
> canceled, delayed or absorbed by the event horizon surrounding the
> infinitely dense Black Hole that is the intellectual property mess? ;-)
> 
> And if we're going to state our own opinions in an aside, I personally
> believe that such an archive would be invaluable. "He who fogets history
> is doomed to repeat it" and all that....

Yes. The history here is the reason why the drafts are ephemeral and not 
archived - to encourage the exchange of incomplete ideas. The success of 
this history is what is being compromised.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Keith Moore | 1 Jul 2002 18:03
Picon

Re: Pursuing question of mime types in W3C specifications and nextactions

> Why would *the IETF* create a different process for W3C documents? 

it's not doing so.  this is just w3c and ietf working out a mutual understanding
of how to meet the process requirements of both organizations concurrently -
rather than sequentially, which can take a lot longer.

Keith
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Deutsch | 1 Jul 2002 18:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate


Thanks a 1x10^6. I missed that!

			- peterd

graham.travers <at> bt.com wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> 
> "...there were pretty categoric statements made during the last iteration of
> this thread that
> a Drafts archive *was* going up "soon". Has this idea been shelved,
> canceled, delayed or absorbed by the event horizon surrounding the
> infinitely dense Black Hole that is the intellectual property mess? ;-)"
> 
> Try http://ietfreport.isoc.org/
> 
>         Regards,
> 
>         Graham Travers
> 
>         International Standards Manager
>         BTexact Technologies
> 
>         e-mail:   graham.travers <at> bt.com
>         tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
>         mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
>         fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087
> 
>         HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Deutsch | 1 Jul 2002 18:41
Picon
Favicon

Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate


Joe Touch wrote:
. . . 
> Yes. The history here is the reason why the drafts are ephemeral and not
> archived - to encourage the exchange of incomplete ideas. The success of
> this history is what is being compromised.
> 
> Archiving them creates an environment where drafts and updates will be
> stalled, with the response "well, since this is archival, we'd better
> get it a little more complete". Given how long it takes for even the
> active drafts to make it to RFC with such discussion, the chilling
> effect on the creation of RFCs (at least by people who _are_ careful,
> who you want to encourage) may grind things to a halt.

Well, if the community collectively decided that they didn't want to
remember its history, that would be fine but I mentioned this because I
thought that when we last went through this it was the consensus that
remembering would be a "Good Thing" (to quote a well know flowing
arranging allegedly insider trader.. ;-) and I saw statements that an
archive was coming "soon". This may have been in out-of-band
communications, not the list but in any event as Graham has pointed out,
ISOC is doing this now. Good stuff...

FWIW, I personally don't buy the "it will have a chilling effect on
discussion" arguement, given that the email lists are archived here,
there and everywhere and now Google has all the old Usenet postings up.
Have you actually gone to Google and checked out the Usenet archives?
It's amazing what's out there.

So why not RFC Drafts? I've already had cause a couple of times to help
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Keith Moore | 1 Jul 2002 20:40
Picon

Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate

it's really very simple: people posted I-Ds with the assurance that they
would be retired after six months.  it's not reasonable for IETF to 
violate that assurance without permission.

so if IETF wants to make old drafts publically available (and I agree
this could be a useful thing), it really should get permission from the 
authors. or at least notify them and give authors the chance to say 
"please do not make my old documents publically accessible".

it would also be reasonable to allow authors to specify, when submitting
a new I-D, whether the draft should be made available after expiration.

Keith
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Joe Touch | 1 Jul 2002 23:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate

Keith Moore wrote:
> if respecting the author's wishes isn't reasonable or practical,
> it might be that you live in a pretty warped world.

Or a courtroom (or will).

These aren't just wishes; there are valid copyright issues.

Joe
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Keith Moore | 1 Jul 2002 23:22
Picon

Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate

> These aren't just wishes; there are valid copyright issues.

perhaps. but even if the lawyers said it was okay for IETF
to make those archives public, I'd still argue that it's
acting in bad faith for IETF to do so without a reasonable
effort to get permission.

i.e. laws and ethics aren't the same thing.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Pekka Savola | 1 Jul 2002 23:43
Picon

Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> > These aren't just wishes; there are valid copyright issues.
> 
> perhaps. but even if the lawyers said it was okay for IETF
> to make those archives public, I'd still argue that it's
> acting in bad faith for IETF to do so without a reasonable
> effort to get permission.

I fail to see how this would be a problem.

At time X, there is an announcement (on mailing list, internet-drafts <at>  
autoresponder, whatnot) that archives will be made available.

At time X+6 months expired drafts are purged, and all drafts are also 
archived.

It can then be assumed that the author will be aware of the policy wrt. 
his drafts.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane