Re: submitting an ID
At 0:06 +0100 1/24/07, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: So the answer is that the requirements for this are in the ID-Checklist, which applies to drafts that are submitted for IESG consideration, rather than in the ID-Guidelines (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html) which apply to draft submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in general. The ID-Checklist is referenced from the same page you referred to earlier, http://www.ietf.org/ID.html, a couple of lines below the reference and link to the ID-Guidelines. You're right, and I noticed all of that. What made this mysterious to me was why I failed to see my submissions get announced for some time. I never got any official feedback so I began to assume that the nits tool was the official word. After all, one recommendation was to just use the XML2RFC tool and not bother interpreting the requirements. Apparently my draft did finally get announced - although I haven't checked to see which version came out. (I.e., which -00, differing in boilerplates.) What I'm trying to vent here is a plea to make the instructions for submitting a draft a bit clearer, for instance, recommend a run of the nits tool and also say whether or not the nits tool's assessment is binding or not. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: submitting an ID
At 22:27 + 1/23/07, Tony Finch wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Edward Lewis wrote: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html Try looking at sections 3 and 4 which are also about IPR. Section 3 - " Any submission which does not include these statements will be returned to the submitter." Nothing was ever returned to me. I have the section 3 boilerplate in there. There is no mandatory boilerplate in section 4. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch.___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: submitting an ID
On 1/23/07, Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have a question on section 3 of http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt The short answer is that it was copied directly out of RFC 3978 (plus the modifications in RFC 4748). When I was updating 1id-guidelines, I erred on the side of exactly duplicating the text in the RFC, since the RFC is really what defines the rules. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: submitting an ID
On 1/24/07, Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What made this mysterious to me was why I failed to see my submissions get announced for some time. I never got any official feedback so I began to assume that the nits tool was the official word. When this happens, it's best to contact the secretariat to find out the status of the I-D submission (see the last sentence of section 7 of 1id-guidelines). Guessing is an ineffectual method of learning what caused the delay. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IETF IP Contribution Policy
FYI about the IETF IP Contribution Policy, please see the following link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4342 /Larry Rosen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: submitting an ID
Hi Edward, on 2007-01-24 15:14 Edward Lewis said the following: > At 0:06 +0100 1/24/07, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >>So the answer is that the requirements for this are in the ID-Checklist, which >>applies to drafts that are submitted for IESG consideration, rather than in >>the ID-Guidelines (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html) which apply >>to draft submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in general. >> >>The ID-Checklist is referenced from the same page you referred to earlier, >>http://www.ietf.org/ID.html, a couple of lines below the reference and link to >>the ID-Guidelines. > > You're right, and I noticed all of that. > > What made this mysterious to me was why I failed to see my > submissions get announced for some time. I never got any official > feedback so I began to assume that the nits tool was the official > word. After all, one recommendation was to just use the XML2RFC tool > and not bother interpreting the requirements. Ah, I see. > Apparently my draft did finally get announced - although I haven't > checked to see which version came out. (I.e., which -00, differing > in boilerplates.) What I'm trying to vent here is a plea to make the > instructions for submitting a draft a bit clearer, for instance, > recommend a run of the nits tool and also say whether or not the nits > tool's assessment is binding or not. Right. This should improve when the web-based draft submission tool (based on the RFC 4228 specification) comes online, which is planned to happen in time for Prague. Currently, the secretariat has a separate script to check ID-Guidelines conformance, and its results aren't always identical with those of idnits. When the web-based submission tool comes online, it will use idnits in an ID-Guidelines checking mode instead of a separate script, so the results of the ID-Guidelines section of the idnits check should always match the automated checking done by the submission tool, and the submission tool should show clearly what was amiss if a problem is found with a submission. idnits will continue to indicate non-conformance with the ID-Checklist, too, but errors reported in this section of the output only becomes a show-stopper at the time the document is sent to the IESG. ( That doesn't mean that ID-Checklist nits can't be fixed earlier, of course ;-) I hope that helps a bit. Regards, Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF IP Contribution Policy
Well you start by mistaking the IETF for a democratic body. It isn't. There are no members and no elections. I don't think that you are raising issues that the IETF participants are not aware of. All things being equal practically every participant would prefer RAND+Zero cost licensing terms on all IPR grants. Almost every IETF WG attempts to secure these terms, the problem is that there are cases where it is simpoly not possible to secure them. In particular there was no way to develop PKI based standards on that basis before the expiry of the Diffie-Hellman patent. The more relevant concern is that the IETF policy allows for infinite shades of grey. Licensing terms are left to individual WGs to negotiate, a situation that reduces the strategic negotiating leverage of the IETF. A large company that makes a compromise to WG X cannot expect this to be considered a precedent that other companies will be required to respect in WG Y. They can however be expected to provide terms at least as generous in WG Y themselves. The solution is to adopt the OASIS approach of a small set of clearly defined IPR regimes and to require WGs to specify their chosen IPR regime during the chartering process. This would allow the creation of standardized IPR licenses for the particular regimes. There is no particular reason why the Microsoft IPR grant should be worded any differently to the IBM or VeriSign grant if they are intended to provide the same rights. I would expect that formation of groups on terms other than RANDZ would be very rare, possibly non-existent. If someone has an effective patent claim and expects to charge royalties then let them write the specification themselves. They have the means to enforce compliance. I don't see why others would want to do that for them. I think that this approach also misses the fact that the real problem with IPR is not the actions of WG participants. The real problem is the behavior of non-participating patent trolls. > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:28 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org > Subject: IETF IP Contribution Policy > > FYI about the IETF IP Contribution Policy, please see the > following link: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4342 > > /Larry Rosen > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
