Procedures for Rights Handling in the RFC Independent Submission Stream
RFC 5744
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-05-16 |
02 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Joel Halpern" to "Joel Halpern, Robert Braden" |
2015-10-14 |
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from braden@isi.edu, jhalpern@redback.com, draft-braden-independent-submission@ietf.org to braden@isi.edu |
2012-08-22 |
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings |
2012-08-22 |
02 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
2010-01-04 |
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-01-04 |
02 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5744' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-12-17 |
02 | (System) | RFC published |
2009-12-10 |
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2009-11-10 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-braden-independent-submission-02.txt |
2009-10-26 |
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-10-26 |
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-10-26 |
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-10-22 |
02 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-10-22 |
02 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings |
2009-10-22 |
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
2009-10-22 |
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] The draft says Note also that this unlimited derivative works policy applies to all parts of an Independent Stream document, including … [Ballot discuss] The draft says Note also that this unlimited derivative works policy applies to all parts of an Independent Stream document, including any code. Therefore, no separate licensing procedure is required for extracting and adapting code that is contained in an Independent Stream document submitted under the (preferred) unlimited derivative works terms. If this is a request to the Trustees, then it is inappropriate to publish at an RFC as it will be confused by people as what the rules are instead of what rules were requested. If it is statement of the rules, then I wonder if it would be better in the IAB stream. |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Comment removed after email discussions with Joel Halpern. |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] I may have been watching this insufficiently, but... Section 5 makes several requests to the IETF Trust for action. Is this I-D/RFC the … [Ballot discuss] I may have been watching this insufficiently, but... Section 5 makes several requests to the IETF Trust for action. Is this I-D/RFC the most efficient way to make those requests? Will the Trust even notice that we have made the request? How do we expect the Trust's public statements and commitments to be recorded? Hopefully, this can be addressed simply by you telling me what the current state of affairs is. --- Section 7 (the IANA section) also includes... This document does make specific request of the IASA, as described in preceding sections. Firstly, does this actually refer to section 5 rather than section 6? I can't see any specific requests for aciton in seciton 6 although there is an implicit request for the IPR collation service to apply (be extended?) to the Independent Stream. Second, I'm not sure that "hiding" this note about IASA in the IANA section is the best idea. I think this can be addressed by some simple edits. |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I would not have been sorry to see this document go to IETF last call. Although absolutely not necessary (on a number of … [Ballot comment] I would not have been sorry to see this document go to IETF last call. Although absolutely not necessary (on a number of counts) it seems to me that it is a piece of process where we would benefit from being able to claim IETF consensus. |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] I may have been watching this insufficiently, but... Section 5 makes several requests to the IETF Trust for action. I this I-D/RFC the … [Ballot discuss] I may have been watching this insufficiently, but... Section 5 makes several requests to the IETF Trust for action. I this I-D/RFC the most efficient way to make those requests? Will the Trust even notice that we have made the request? How do we expect the Trust's public statements and commitments to be recorded? Hopefully, this can be addressed simply by you telling me what the current state of affairs is. --- Section 7 (the IANA section) also includes... This document does make specific request of the IASA, as described in preceding sections. Firstly, does this actually refer to section 5 rather than section 6? I can't see any specific requests for aciton in seciton 6 although there is an implicit request for the IPR collation service to apply (be extended?) to the Independent Stream. Second, I'm not sure that "hiding" this note about IASA in the IANA section is the best idea. I think this can be addressed by some simple edits. |
2009-10-21 |
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-10-20 |
02 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Throughout the document, ISE is expanded as "Independent Stream Editor." However, RFC 5620 uses Independent Submission Editor. Please use the term … [Ballot comment] Throughout the document, ISE is expanded as "Independent Stream Editor." However, RFC 5620 uses Independent Submission Editor. Please use the term from RFC 5620. The Abstract says: This document specifies the procedures by which authors of RFC Independent Stream documents grant the community "incoming" rights for copying and using the text. It also specifies the "outgoing" rights the community grants to readers and users of those documents, and it requests that the IETF Trust manage the outgoing rights to effect this result. s/effect/affect/ Section 2 says: Section 8 of RFC 4846 presented the copyright rules for the Independent Submission stream. The present document is intended to be fully consistent with that section, and to update it by clarifying the Trust-based formal procedures to effect those rules. The last sentence should be reworded to ensure that "Trust" is interpreted as the IETF Trust. Documents that become April 1st RFCs are not posted an I-Ds. Should this document say anything about them? |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley |
2009-10-16 |
02 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-10-16 |
02 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-10-16 |
02 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Russ Housley |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Russ Housley | Note field has been cleared by Russ Housley |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Telechat review by SECDIR to Sean Turner was rejected |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 4., paragraph 1: > Independent Stream authors will submit their material as Internet- > Drafts. These drafts will be submitted … [Ballot comment] Section 4., paragraph 1: > Independent Stream authors will submit their material as Internet- > Drafts. These drafts will be submitted to, and stored in, the IETF > Internet-Drafts repository in the same fashion as IETF Internet- > Drafts. Minor comment: FWIW, April 1 RFCs are explicitly excluded from the requirement to be submitted as IDs first on http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. How is rights transfer handled for them? |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Lars Eggert | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2009-10-16 |
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
2009-10-14 |
02 | Russ Housley | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Russ Housley |
2009-10-14 |
02 | Russ Housley | Draft Added by Russ Housley in state Publication Requested |
2009-09-15 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-braden-independent-submission-01.txt |
2009-09-13 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-braden-independent-submission-00.txt |