somewhat orthogonal post - Question about Internet Services and SLA's - and the IETF's blanket license.

My apologies - this is also somewhat orthogonal but its interesting how the 
Technology Folks figured out how to violate the contract the IETF sets up 
for the use of the Registrar's DNS services use model of a fail-over for 
spelling errors of not-found lookups.

I was reviewing a SLA from one of the commercial providers and it suddenly 
hit me that neither the Registrar's or the IETF or anyone in the SLA's they 
executed agreed to 'that if a port-80 client does a lookup that the DNS 
service will be able to provide another answer if the address isnt found - 
or for that matter to funnel all requests through a proxy which displays 
first the proxy-sites info including sales info prior to then going to the 
selected page. Or in creating a framed-referrer harness for the lookups 
done...

The point is that the end-user has no agreement with the DNS Registrar's and 
there is nothing in the NTIA agreement that would allow the Registrar's to 
do this *** without *** formally running this service change through the 
IETF - where it most likely would be promptly shot-down by the management 
IMHO.  The problem is that the IETF specifically set it up to allow this 
abuse.

The problem the IETF faces is that it appears arguable that the SLA and 
license from both the ISC for the use of BIND and the IETF for its ANY and 
ALL uses, are specifically the two responsible parties for the fact that 
when you mistype a domain name that you wind up at Joe's Garage and are 
offered other services than what you tried to look up.

You folks talk about protecting the Internet but the license the IETF issues 
this under itself is the issue and that means this group is involved.

Re: IETF Trust Decision on "Legal Provisions for IETF Documents" (datedOctober 16, 2008)

Yeah - there is a flaw in the logic. The issue is really tricky with
Standard's Document's who's precursor document's are all done under
different copyright and license agreement's as would be the case for a
process in the IETF which took several years to start and complete with all
the changes over the last couple of years in regard to the IPR.

Bluntly without a Hold-Harmless clause in this contract - I think the IETF 
and its lawyers are in for a world of hurt... but that's just my 2 cents.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Juskevicius" <edj <at> nortel.com>
To: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Cc: "Trustees" <trustees <at> ietf.org>; "IETF Discussion" <ietf <at> ietf.org>;
<iesg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:31 PM
Subject: IETF Trust Decision on "Legal Provisions for IETF Documents"
(datedOctober 16, 2008)

This message is an announce the IETF Trustees have reached consensus on
a policy entitled "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents".

The Trustees met via telechat during October to review all "last call"
comments on the draft policy, and to approve the Policy.  Thank you for
all of your inputs to our deliberations, and for your patience with
process.  We are done!

Attached to this message, please find a marked version of the final
policy document as it was reviewed by Trustees in October, and a clean

RFC 5377 on Advice to the Trustees of the IETF Trust on Rights to Be Granted in IETF Documents

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 5377

        Title:      Advice to the Trustees of 
                    the IETF Trust on Rights to 
                    Be Granted in IETF Documents 
        Author:     J. Halpern, Ed.
        Status:     Informational
        Date:       November 2008
        Mailbox:    jmh <at> joelhalpern.com
        Pages:      8
        Characters: 17843
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-07.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5377.txt

Contributors grant intellectual property rights to the IETF.  The
IETF Trust holds and manages those rights on behalf of the IETF.  The
Trustees of the IETF Trust are responsible for that management.  This
management includes granting the licenses to copy, implement, and
otherwise use IETF Contributions, among them Internet-Drafts and
RFCs.  The Trustees of the IETF Trust accepts direction from the IETF
regarding the rights to be granted.  This document describes the
desires of the IETF regarding outbound rights to be granted in IETF
Contributions.  This memo provides information for the Internet community.

BCP 78, RFC 5378 on Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        BCP 78        
        RFC 5378

        Title:      Rights Contributors Provide to the 
                    IETF Trust 
        Author:     S. Bradner, Ed.,
                    J. Contreras, Ed.
        Status:     Best Current Practice
        Date:       November 2008
        Mailbox:    sob <at> harvard.edu, 
                    jorge.contreras <at> wilmerhale.com
        Pages:      16
        Characters: 37980
        Obsoletes:  RFC3978, RFC4748
        Updates:    RFC2026
        See Also:   BCP0078

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-09.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5378.txt

The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed
to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and
Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many
rights as possible.  This memo details the IETF policies on rights in
Contributions to the IETF.  It also describes the objectives that the
policies are designed to meet.  This memo obsoletes RFCs 3978 and 4748

Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

I have a better idea - lets pull Cisco's Tax Filings and find out how 
they write these efforts down.

Todd Glassey

Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2008, at 11:42 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>> On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to
>> "estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D.  I'll even
>> issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall.  -Tim
>
> I have a suggestion. Let's start with RFC 968. Like all RFCs, I tend 
> to think it is priceless.
>
> And let's keep this off the IETF list, OK? it belongs on ietf-ipr, and 
> is off-topic everywhere else.
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1743 - Release Date: 10/24/2008 8:33 AM
>
>   

Congratulations on the publication of RFCs 5377 and 5378

Dear IPR WG:

Thanks you for you efforts.  It was quite an effort to complete these 
documents.  Thanks for many months of effort.

With the publication of these RFCs, the charter of the IPR WG is 
fulfilled, so I will be closing the IPR WG soon.  The mail list will 
remain open to discuss IETF IPR issues in the future.  Many thanks to 
Stefan Wenger for his kind offer to act as moderator.

Once again, thank you for you contributions.

Russ Housley
General Area Director

>To: ietf-announce <at> ietf.org, rfc-dist <at> rfc-editor.org
>Subject: RFC 5377 on Advice to the Trustees of the IETF Trust on Rights to Be
>         Granted in IETF Documents
>From: rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:50:31 -0800 (PST)
>Cc: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org, rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org
>
>A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
>         RFC 5377
>
>         Title:      Advice to the Trustees of
>                     the IETF Trust on Rights to
>                     Be Granted in IETF Documents
>         Author:     J. Halpern, Ed.

[Fwd: RFC 5377 on Advice to the Trustees of the IETF Trust on Rights to Be Granted in IETF Documents]

Our documents have now been published as RFCs.

Congratulations, and thanks to everyone who's worked hard and 
constructively to get to this point - it's been a long haul, but now 
it's over!

                    Harald

From: Our documents have now been published as RFCs. Congratulations, and thanks to everyone who's worked hard and constructively to get to this point - it's been a long haul, but now it's over! Harald <rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org>
Subject: RFC 5377 on Advice to the Trustees of the IETF Trust on Rights to Be Granted in IETF Documents
Date: 2008-11-11 02:50:31 GMT

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        

Re: Congratulations on the publication of RFCs 5377 and 5378

Russ - as the Chair - if these documents create untenable IP controls - 
and people or entities are damaged - Does the IETF assume financial 
liability for its rules and processes here?

Todd Glassey

Russ Housley wrote:
> Dear IPR WG:
>
> Thanks you for you efforts.  It was quite an effort to complete these 
> documents.  Thanks for many months of effort.
>
> With the publication of these RFCs, the charter of the IPR WG is 
> fulfilled, so I will be closing the IPR WG soon.  The mail list will 
> remain open to discuss IETF IPR issues in the future.  Many thanks to 
> Stefan Wenger for his kind offer to act as moderator.
>
> Once again, thank you for you contributions.
>
> Russ Housley
> General Area Director
>
>
>> To: ietf-announce <at> ietf.org, rfc-dist <at> rfc-editor.org
>> Subject: RFC 5377 on Advice to the Trustees of the IETF Trust on 
>> Rights to Be
>>         Granted in IETF Documents
>> From: rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org
>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:50:31 -0800 (PST)
>> Cc: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org, rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org

Announcement: New Boilerplate Text Required for all new Submissions to IETF

Greetings.  This message is to draw your attention to the significance
of the publication of RFC5377 and RFC5378 earlier today.  

* RFC5377 is Advice to the Trustees of the IETF Trust on Rights to Be
Granted in IETF Documents
* RFC5378 is Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust

Note that RFC5378 is also BCP0078.  RFC5378 is an update to RFC2026, and
RFC5378 obsoletes both RFC3978 and RFC4748. 

Coincident with the above, the IETF Trustees have posted a new policy
document with guidance to the community on:
* Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents at
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/

Taken as a set, the documents listed above specify changes that are now
required in all new submissions into the IETF.

Henrik Levkowetz has updated the idnit tool and AMS have updated the
Internet-Draft submission tool to reflect the new requirements.  An
update to the xml2rfc has been requested. 

Please review the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" and
RFC5378 to discover the new boilerplate text that is now required.
Please also take action to update the tools you use for creating your
documents.

New submissions using either the old or the new boilerplate text will be
accepted starting today, until 01h00 UTC on December 16th, 2008.  After
this cutoff date, all new submissions will be required to use ONLY the

Re: IETF Trust Decision on "Legal Provisions for IETF Documents" (dated October 16, 2008)

"Ed Juskevicius" <edj <at> nortel.com> writes:

> This message is an announce the IETF Trustees have reached consensus on
> a policy entitled "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents".

Congratulations!  And thanks for posting the final documents.

To make sure we also archive the Code Components List, which is linked
from by the Legal Provisions, and make that available for easy reference
(via the mailing list archive) I retrieved the file today.  I used the
URL from the PDF you posted.  SHA-1 hash as below.

mocca:~$ wget -q http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Code_Components_List_8-12-08.txt
jas <at> mocca:~$ sha1sum Code_Components_List_8-12-08.txt
9dbc3bc95964c4f506630d2ff7e20ae02ccced2a  Code_Components_List_8-12-08.txt
jas <at> mocca:~$

The Trustee's web pages links to another Code Components list from
<http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/>.  I'm including SHA-1 hash of
that file and attaches it as well.  The content appears to be the same,
but it uses different formatting.  It is not clear to me which is the
canonical source.

jas <at> mocca:~$ wget -q http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Code-Components-List.txt
jas <at> mocca:~$ sha1sum Code-Components-List.txt
d48d740ce99a322c00e28865f4a76213b377caed  Code-Components-List.txt
jas <at> mocca:~$

/Simon