Issue found with BCP 78 version 2

Folks,

the RFC Editor has identified a problem with the current rights draft, and 
has suggested a fix.

If nobody objects to this fix within a day or so, I'll tell them it's OK.

I did not want to change this without a public record.

                    Harald

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: onsdag, desember 08, 2004 11:35:00 -0800
From: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, sob@harvard.edu, harald@alvestrand.no
Cc: smb@research.att.com
Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: BCP 78, RFC 3907 
<draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix-00.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Harald,

I should explain the nature of the current problem with BCP 79bis, and
my perplexity on how to fix it.

BCP 78 prescribes copyright boilerplate in an Internet Draft. In
practice, the RFC Editor inserts boilerplate that is very slightly
different for independent submissions:

 IETF submissions (text as in BCP 78):

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

 Independent submissions:

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set
   forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This difference is consistent with the intent of the WG that developed
BCP 78, that the RFC Editor should determine the copyright rules for
independent submissions.  In particular, we have a broader allowance
for derivative works, as noted in www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html.

In contrast, Section 5 of BCP 79 prescribes the IPR disclaimer
boilerplate that the RFC Editor must put into IETF submissions and
all RFC Editor submissions for which IPR has been declared.  It has
repeatedly been suggested to us that the simplest approach for us
is to always put in the disclaimer text, and we have agreed to this.

Unfortunately, the prescribed boilerplate includes the sentence:

      Information on the procedures with respect to rights
      in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

This statement apparently covers BOTH BCP 78 copyright procedures and
BCP 79 patent procedures, and it is incomplete in the first case, as
noted above.

A proposed fix is to insert the following in the IPR boilerplate,

      Information on the procedures with respect to rights
      in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78, BCP 79, and
      at rfc-editor.org.

I have discussed this with Scott, and he said it "looks right".
But this change will contradict BCP 79bis (as well as BCP 79).

Is there a chance we can change BCP 79bis?

Thanks,

Bob Braden

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg