[18:25:00] --- swb has joined
[18:25:12] <swb> topic IETF67 meeting
[18:25:23] * swb changes the topic to: IETF67 meeting
[18:28:20] --- smb has joined
[18:32:13] --- josoinin@jabber.org/Meebo has joined
[18:32:16] --- Barry Leiba has joined
[18:33:04] <swb> thanks to all of you (I'm next door)
[18:33:06] --- hardie@jabber.psg.com has joined
[18:33:07] --- becarpenter has joined
[18:33:07] --- Bill has joined
[18:33:11] --- sbotzko has joined
[18:33:21] --- sob has joined
[18:33:22] <smb> no jabber scribe volunteers yet....
[18:33:59] <sob> agenda bashing
[18:34:06] <sob> no bashing requests
[18:34:19] --- yjs has joined
[18:34:19] <sob> topic of mtg = outbound rights
[18:34:45] <swb> I'll be particularly interested when we get to the bottom half of the agenda
[18:35:01] <sob> swb - ack
[18:35:08] --- tonyhansen has joined
[18:37:25] <sob> hta - proposal - "cite all, translate all, change code"
[18:37:33] --- hb47713 has joined
[18:37:40] <swb> What does that mean?
[18:37:54] <sob> johnk - running code - hard to get right
[18:38:24] <sob> joel - no legaleze - so what does johnk mean by 'getting right'
[18:38:51] <sob> johnk - not sure can get legaleze right even if in seperate docs
[18:39:03] <sob> plus - not stable understanding of what we want
[18:41:38] <sob> ted h - new issue - words in ID do not give writers of legal text enough guidance
[18:42:08] <sob> also may be problems with inbound rights (about code in IDs) - issue
[18:42:40] <sob> about including license statements even though we do not want extra statements
[18:43:17] <sob> suggestion - maybe in this doc deal with unencombered code
[18:44:01] <sob> joel - thought that all code to be included in rfcs must be able to be modified
[18:48:40] <sob> ted - reads language in 5.5 - not clear
[18:49:27] <sob> sob - issue with 'no derivative' works & old rfcs
[18:50:09] <sob> brian c - should we not include independent submissions
[18:50:42] <sob> joel - id sys "ietf contrbutions" to avoid independent submission
[18:51:09] <sob> john k - support joel but need clear statement
[18:51:29] <sob> smb - please clearify
[18:52:39] <swb> so the question is whether independent contributions are under the same rules as ietf-originated ones?
[18:52:46] <sob> johnk - 3978 is unclear about independent submissions - new docs have to be clear about relationship with independent submissions
[18:55:48] --- rlbob has joined
[18:55:49] --- josoinin@jabber.org/Meebo has left: Logged out
[18:56:37] <sob> harald - call for consensus feeling - is "cite all, translate all, change code" correct set of outbound rights?
[18:56:51] <sob> 12 yes, 0 no, 1 still confulsed
[18:57:10] <swb> I wish I understood what it means
[18:57:58] <sob> means= can extract any text for any reason, can translate any text, can modify "code"
[18:58:09] <swb> ok sure
[18:58:11] <swb> thanks
[18:59:02] <sob> johnk - if new outbound in blanket basis - need wg
[18:59:26] <sob> if special cases about specific docs - then let the iasa decide
[19:03:27] <sob> sob - need to limit right granting ability to the rightes we get from the authors
[19:03:44] <swb> :nods:
[19:05:14] <sob> ted h - ietf trust is manager of ietf rights
[19:05:30] <sob> who asks for exceptions
[19:05:55] <sob> who can advise the trust?
[19:06:54] <sob> joel - exceptions happen - do not want to have to do that in a wg - can write anything to tell trust how to make rights grants
[19:10:05] --- sbotzko has left: Replaced by new connection
[19:10:08] <sob> ?? - (current trustee) - who shoudl have right to ask trust for rights
[19:10:15] --- sbotzko has joined
[19:10:47] <sob> smb - suggest iesg should be the one to ask
[19:11:25] --- sbotzko has left: Replaced by new connection
[19:11:28] <sob> hta - suggestion 'iesg asks, ietf trust decides on special cases"
[19:11:47] --- sbotzko has joined
[19:11:51] <sob> hta - call fo rconsuses
[19:12:01] <sob> 14 yes, 0 no, 0 don;t know
[19:13:39] <sob> ted h - agree - there are docs that are "ietf contrubutions" but not approves by the iesg - maybe also add the ability of the iab to ask for docs under its authority
[19:14:27] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> for those on the jabber, the point here is that the IAB can approve documents which are IETF contributions without the IESG.
[19:14:36] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> (draft-iab-*)
[19:15:23] <sob> b fenner - some work done on classifying docs - maybe follow document streams
[19:16:17] <sob> joel - how about just say 'iesg & iab"
[19:16:25] <sob> hta - consensus ok? yes
[19:18:45] <sob> hta - small issues
[19:20:21] --- sbotzko has left: Replaced by new connection
[19:20:23] --- sbotzko has joined
[19:22:30] <sob> code vs non-code - hard to define
[19:22:47] <sob> discussion on what is code - do we need a marker in the doc?
[19:22:56] <swb> I like the proposal on the list that "code" get explicitly marked as "code" in the document.
[19:23:57] <sob> brian - can not have a list today that would be valid in 5 years - but could be done by a registry
[19:24:55] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> I dispute that. The list today would be valid in 5 years. It would never be complete, today or in 5 years--it is just likely to be less complete
[19:25:29] <sob> smb - 1st line of 5.3 - 'to be direcrtly processed by a computer'
[19:25:47] <swb> :nods to ted
[19:26:19] <sob> johnk - could clone code into a database
[19:26:25] <swb> smb: what about pseudocode? I think using a HUMAN to make the decision and mark it is a lot easier than anything procedural
[19:27:00] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> swb: do you want that reflected to the room?
[19:27:02] <sob> brian c - who decides who indended what (5.3. says "indended")
[19:27:04] --- klensin has joined
[19:27:31] <smb> <chair hat=off>If it's pseudo-code, it's not being incorporated direclty into a program, so it's not code.
[19:27:32] <sob> no consensus - in room
[19:27:39] <smb> </chair>
[19:28:26] <sob> ?? - maybe do both?
[19:29:22] <sob> johnk - how about 'if no marks in doc, then use rules'
[19:29:45] <swb> smb: but I think it should be possible to modify pseudocode just like directly usable code -- the intent is the same
[19:29:53] <swb> :nods to johnk
[19:30:38] <sob> tedh - should let someone say whole doc falls under code rules (i.e. open for change)
[19:30:53] <swb> yes
[19:31:07] <smb> swb: to what end? documentation? the whole purpose of letting code be modifiable is to permit accomodation to local reality.
[19:32:50] <sob> joel - both is best - markers help in many cases - then defined rules (not judgement) code 'e.g., C code is always code'
[19:33:21] <swb> smb: Yes, local documentation. But "both" sounds fine, it's inclusive.
[19:33:23] <swb> thanks
[19:34:01] <sob> consensus on markers + rules as approprate
[19:38:20] <sob> how about no derv works ?
[19:39:25] <sob> joel - use as example in id of case where trust can not grant rigts they do not have
[19:40:33] <sob> hta - do we want to mention indep sub? - consensus no
[19:43:39] <sob> hta - sec 5.5 - maybe too specific
[19:44:08] <sob> joel - need to say something about copyright
[19:49:36] <sob> discussion - result "documents should not contain text that restricts the IETF-granted rigyts to use the document"
[19:49:59] <swb> How does that interact with the different headers?
[19:50:31] <sob> "different headers?
[19:51:02] <swb> the different versions of boilerplate depending on the rights you're willing to grant (author)
[19:54:18] --- hardie@jabber.psg.com has left
[19:56:07] <sob> swb - discussed - restrivive boilertplate not overruled by this text
[19:56:39] <swb> tn
[19:56:40] <swb> tnx
[19:57:04] <sob> discussion on rights in old rfcs
[19:57:43] <sob> sob - 3 types of rfcs 1/ pre ietf copyright, 2/ post joel's document, in between
[19:58:04] <sob> sob - pre ietf copyright - trust working on this
[19:58:23] <sob> sob - post joel doc - covered by joel's doc
[19:58:49] <sob> sob - in between - very hard
[19:59:02] <sob> hta - now talking about 3978 bis
[19:59:32] <sob> 2 sections - philosophy and boilerplate
[20:00:03] <sob> give to trust the right to make minor boilerplate changes w/o ne WG
[20:01:03] <sob> minor within current understanding of rules
[20:01:30] <sob> johnk - defining "minor" tricky
[20:02:00] <sob> if appeals process then has to stop trust from acting
[20:02:01] <swb> non-substantive, that is, changes which do not change the intent of the text.
[20:02:24] <sob> brian - may be hard to impose restriction sunce trust legally seperate
[20:03:34] <sob> now discuss - 'no deravative work
[20:07:06] --- hb47713 has left
[20:08:24] <swb> how are we?
[20:08:55] <sob> joel - lets move NDW to rfc ed only
[20:09:35] <sob> sob - historically - some WGs have published NDW docs & can be useful
[20:10:16] <sob> ted - more examples - agree
[20:10:52] <sob> joel - NDW not that useful
[20:12:09] <sob> johnk - NDW come from "outside" - extrenal docs
[20:13:10] <sob> johnk - maybe figure out how to note the external nature legally
[20:13:46] <sob> (scribe pauses are when scribe to mike)
[20:14:16] <sob> consensus - NDW docs useful (9 to 1)
[20:15:15] <sob> discuss timeline
[20:16:09] <swb> swb is now in the IPR room
[20:16:36] <sob> meeting closed
[20:16:41] --- sbotzko has left
[20:16:41] --- sob has left
[20:16:50] <swb> arrivederci
[20:16:53] --- swb has left
[20:16:59] --- Barry Leiba has left
[20:18:57] --- rlbob has left
[20:19:29] --- smb has left
[20:20:31] --- Bill has left: Computer went to sleep
[20:22:56] --- yjs has left: Disconnected.
[20:26:16] --- klensin has left
[20:34:57] --- yjs has joined
[20:37:36] --- becarpenter has left
[20:42:52] --- becarpenter has joined
[20:43:11] --- yjs has left
[20:45:55] --- tonyhansen has left
[21:00:11] --- Bill has joined
[21:09:28] --- becarpenter has left
[21:24:04] --- Bill has left