Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
07 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Chris Newman
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Lars Eggert
2008-11-11
07 (System) This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming
2008-11-11
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5377; BCP 78, RFC 5378' added by Cindy Morgan
2008-11-11
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2008-11-11
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5377' added by Cindy Morgan
2008-11-10
07 (System) RFC published
2008-11-05
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2008-09-19
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-09-19
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-09-18
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-09-18
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-09-18
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-09-18
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2008-07-16
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings
2008-07-13
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-07.txt
2008-06-05
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-06-05
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Chris Newman
2008-06-05
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-06-04
07 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-06-04
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-06-04
07 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-06-03
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-06-03
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-06-03
07 (System) State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system
2008-06-02
07 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-06-02
07 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-05-30
07 Russ Housley Merged with draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming by Russ Housley
2008-05-23
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-05-22
2008-05-21
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-05-21
07 Cullen Jennings State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Cullen Jennings
2008-05-21
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-05-21
07 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-05-21
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2008-05-20
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-05-20
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-05-20
07 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-05-12
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2008-05-12
07 Russ Housley Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley
2008-05-12
07 Russ Housley Created "Approve" ballot
2008-05-12
07 Russ Housley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-05-22 by Russ Housley
2008-05-12
07 Russ Housley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley
2008-05-12
07 Russ Housley Merged with draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming by Russ Housley
2008-04-02
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-04-01
07 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-03-26
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Carl Wallace.
2008-03-20
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2008-03-20
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2008-03-19
07 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-03-19
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-03-19
07 Russ Housley Last Call was requested by Russ Housley
2008-03-19
07 Russ Housley State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Russ Housley
2008-03-19
07 Russ Housley Last Call was requested by Russ Housley
2008-03-19
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-03-19
07 (System) Last call text was added
2008-03-19
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-03-19
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-03-19
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-06.txt
2008-03-07
07 Russ Housley State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley
2008-03-07
07 Russ Housley State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley
2008-02-19
07 Russ Housley
Documents:
- draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-07.txt, destined for BCP
- draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-05.txt, destined for Informational

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the …
Documents:
- draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-07.txt, destined for BCP
- draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-05.txt, destined for Informational

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

        Harald Tveit Alvestrand. Yes.


  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

        The WG review has been adequate.
        The document has been reviewed while in production by IETF
        counsel, and IETF counsel has been asked to do a last review
        before IETF Last Call finishes.


  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

        Apart from review by counsel, no.


  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

        No.


  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

        The WG contains one individual who flamboyantly disagrees with
        the approach taken.  Other individuals think that the IETF does
        not go far enough in allowing reuse of its text, which is a
        problem in some free software contexts, or that the IETF sets
        too stringent requirements for inclusion of code with restrictive
        licenses in documents.

        I believe there is strong consensus that the current documents
        represent the best compromise position we can find at this time.


  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

        One person has indicated extreme discontent with the approach
        taken. A few other people have indicated discontent with the free
        software consequences.


  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

        Yes.


  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

        -outbound has only informative references.
        -incoming has split.

        -incoming has a normative reference on a document to be produced
        by the IETF trust. Both documents reference each other; apart
        from that, all references are stable.


  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

        Yes, there are no IANA actions.


  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

        Yes, there are no such sections.


  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

        The "incoming" memo details the IETF policies on rights in
        Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives
        that the policies are designed to meet.

        The "outgoing" memo describes the desires of the IETF regarding
        outbound rights to be granted in IETF contributions, as managed
        by the Trust.

    Working Group Summary

        The most contentious part of the debate was on whether or not to
        freely allow the production of modified versions of the material
        outside the IETF context. The rough consensus was that code has
        to be modifiable in order to be useful, while the arguments for
        allowing modification of prose text were not compelling for the
        WG's participants.

    Document Quality

        The documents have been reviewed by the working group and by
        IETF counsel.
2008-02-19
07 Russ Housley Draft Added by Russ Housley in state Publication Requested
2007-12-21
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-05.txt
2007-08-29
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-04.txt
2007-04-30
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-03.txt
2007-01-23
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-02.txt
2006-10-04
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-01.txt
2006-03-04
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-00.txt