Thanks to Scott Bradner for compiling these minutes.
I have inserted various points from the slides; if you were present (in
person or via audio/jabber), please send any comment you have to the
minutes as soon as you can.
Harald
Date: March
I - agenda bashing: no changes
II - outgoing rights draft
anyone wish to raise issues before going to IESG
Simon (on Jabber) - I sent in a review Harald: who thinks its ready
for iesg - no response
Brian - ok but should be reviewed on mailing list
no objections in the room to send to IESG but Harald will take
question to list
III - matching issues to resolutions
Harald reviewed issues from issues list and the resolutions
1166 Quotations from RFCs and I-Ds
Resolution: Permitted
1167 Excerpt labeling
Resolution: SHOULD label, format as appropriate
1168 non-code excerpts
Resolution: Permitted
1169 Modified excerpts
Resolution: Permitted for code, not permitted for non-code
1175 How can code be distinguished from non-code?
Resolution: List of types of content + a marker mechanism â Trust
maintains
1199 What license should the IETF grant to third parties on
Contributions?
Resolution: Unmodified excerpts for non-code, excerpt & modify for code
1212 Copyright statements in I-Ds and RFCs: Meaning?
Resolution: Basically meaningless in I-Ds, relevant for RFCs
1237 Should incoming rights be published as 3978 delta or replacement?
Resolution: Replacement
1238 Should secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holder on 3rd
party IPR
disclosures
Resolution: Yes. draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix approved in
January.
1239 Understanding intent of participants
Resolution: None needed.
1400 Permission to modify code: Unlimited or restrictable
Resolution: Unlimited
no argument that these issues should be closed
Harald reviewed issues that have not been resolved
1246 Incoming rights: How much should be said about outgoing rights?
Not resolved, punted to next agenda item
1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?
San Diego: Somebody else's problem (closed)
1282 Should multiple copyright statements be permitted in I-Ds and RFCs?
Suggestion: none needed for I-D, RFC Editor matter for RFCs
Need the ability to do "joint" for joint publication. Need to avoid
lots of
conflicting ones.
1337 Notices and Rights Required in RFC Editor Contributions
Proposal: RFC Editor's problem (+IAB) â not the WG's issue.
1338 Notices "normally placed at the end" (raised in conjunction with
nits checker)
Word "normally" was chosen to be non-nonrmative. Don't check.
1339 Does RFC 3978 3.3.a.(E) grant third parties rights to modify source
Jorge believes that license permits extraction & bugfixing.
close - what is an excerpt
multiple copyrights statements in ID - may need for other SDO
document
rfc ed specific text in incoming doc - consensus: should
be removed
others as on slide
IV - incoming draft
add phrase that says what is normative and what is not
boilerplate - should it be there?
Scott Bradner - yes
Brian Carpenter - changes are painful but 1st set of
boilerplate important
Scott Bradner - do not need most of boilerplate - need
1st pp & exp date
Harald - conclusion: short boilerplate - with trust ok to change
John Klensin - should be in RFC and unchangeable or just
a pointer
Scott Bradner - how about pointer with text that says
text for start of ID that summaries responsibilities of authors in
light of bcp 79
Harald - how many support pointing to doc maintained by trust?
consensus in favor
Harald -incoming doc structure:
abstract
defs
intro & descriptions
legal stuff
John Klensin - need to have incoming stable before last calling
outgoing
Harald - do WGLC on outgoing but say that doc will not go to
IESG until incoming done to cover what -outgoing needs
Ted Hardie (via Jabber) - not do IETF Last Call until incoming
document finished working group last call
meeting concluded
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg