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 |