[05:38:55] --- mkirkham has joined
[05:39:05] --- mkirkham has left
[07:20:07] --- Simon Josefsson has joined
[08:08:17] --- becarpenter has joined
[08:08:19] --- hardie@jabber.psg.com has joined
[08:08:28] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> Any hope of a jabber scribe?
[08:08:40] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> I have to be in SIEVE to channel Lisa
[08:08:54] <becarpenter> discussing that, agenda up now
[08:09:15] <becarpenter> Harald added issue tracker open issues to agenda
[08:09:27] <becarpenter> Scribe volunteer
[08:09:59] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> thanks
[08:10:19] <becarpenter> scott bradner will take notes for minutes
[08:10:48] <becarpenter> agenda bash?
[08:10:52] <becarpenter> none
[08:10:58] --- sbrim has joined
[08:10:59] <becarpenter> outgoing rights draft
[08:11:17] <becarpenter> who read it?
[08:11:22] <becarpenter> a few hands
[08:11:50] <becarpenter> any issues before IESG submission, apart from what has been on ML?
[08:11:51] <Simon Josefsson> i sent a review of the latest draft but i'm not sure if those changes have been incorporated
[08:12:04] <Simon Josefsson> (ok, sorry, missed the part about 'apara on ml')
[08:13:03] <Simon Josefsson> (thanks for channeling, Brian.)
[08:13:22] <becarpenter> issues noted: doc talks about itself
[08:15:53] <becarpenter> in this room, no objections to proceeding once the pending comments are addressed
[08:16:22] <becarpenter> now switching to open issue review
[08:17:22] <becarpenter> [13:16]<Harald> 1166 Quotations from RFCs and I-Ds <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1166> Resolution: Permitted 1167 Excerpt labeling <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1167> Resolution: SHOULD label, format as appropriate 1168 non-code excerpts <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1168> Resolution: Permitted 1169 Modified excerpts <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1169> Resolution: Permitted for code, not permitted for non-code 1175 How can code be distinguished from non-code? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1175> Resolution: List of types of content + a marker mechanism - Trust maintains 1199 What license should the IETF grant to third parties on Contributions? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1199> Resolution: Unmodified excerpts for non-code, excerpt & modify for code 1212 Copyright statements in I-Ds and RFCs: Meaning? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1212> Resolution: Basically meaningless in I-Ds, relevant for RFCs 1237 Should incoming rights be published as 3978 delta or replacement? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1237> Resolution: Replacement 1238 Should secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holder on 3rd party IPR disclosures <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1238> Resolution: Yes. draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix approved in January. 1239 Understanding intent of participants <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1239> Resolution: None needed. 1400 Permission to modify code: Unlimited or restrictable <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1400> Resolution: Unlimited
[08:17:33] --- josoinin@jabber.org/Meebo has joined
[08:17:54] <becarpenter> harald says can close 1166, 1167,
[08:18:08] <becarpenter> 1168, 1169
[08:18:46] <becarpenter> oh, all the above can be closed in Harald's opinion
[08:18:48] --- yjs has joined
[08:20:21] <becarpenter> Issue 1212 - any reason to mention (C) on actual format? Answer no.
[08:20:27] --- sbrim has left
[08:20:32] <becarpenter> (C) is a copyright symbol
[08:20:51] <becarpenter> but jabber thinks it's a cup of coffee
[08:21:08] <becarpenter> Anybody want to keep any oif these open?
[08:21:30] <becarpenter> Now come really open issues...
[08:22:36] <becarpenter> [13:21]<Harald> 1246 Incoming rights: How much should be said about outgoing rights? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1246> Not resolved? 1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1273> Not resolved? 1282 Should multiple copyright statements be permitted in I-Ds and RFCs? <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1282> Resolution: no? 1337 Notices and Rights Required in RFC Editor Contributions <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1337> Proposal: RFC Editor’s problem 1338 Notices "normally placed at the end“ <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1338> Not clear what the problem is, or if it needs solving here 1339 Does RFC 3978 3.3.a. grant third parties rights to modify source <https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1339> Not clear if we need resolution here (or can).
[08:22:46] --- josoinin@jabber.org/Meebo has left: Lost connection
[08:23:26] <becarpenter> Discussing 1273: J Klensin at mike
[08:23:52] <becarpenter> Believes we chose explicit labelling in the text
[08:26:23] <becarpenter> Discussing 1282: probably No, but of course authors retain their rights. Scott Bradner observes that for joint docs with other SDOs, there is a real need for explicit ( C ) to indicate eg shared copyright with IEEE.
[08:27:41] <becarpenter> Discussing 1337: not our problem here...
[08:28:20] <becarpenter> Scott Bradner: but there is much overlpa
[08:28:30] --- josoinin has joined
[08:29:10] <becarpenter> Klensin: recent experience suggests that separation is better since RFC Ed is independent
[08:30:29] <becarpenter> me: agree, but also IAB responsibility as they charter the RFCE
[08:32:14] <becarpenter> harald: will confirm the document change for this on ML
[08:32:31] <becarpenter> Discussing: 1338
[08:34:35] <becarpenter> Confirming that "normallY is intended... boilerplate can be elsewhere
[08:34:49] <becarpenter> Discussing: 1339
[08:37:10] <becarpenter> intention is to allow code fixes in extracted code - must ensure final language clearly allows this
[08:37:21] <becarpenter> Now over to the incoming draft
[08:37:30] <becarpenter> 5 people have read it!
[08:38:03] <becarpenter> <30 people in the room
[08:39:41] --- sbrim has joined
[08:40:02] * sbrim changes the topic to: IETF68 meeting
[08:40:09] <Simon Josefsson> a request: make it clear which part of the document is normative or not.
[08:40:09] <Simon Josefsson> is audio working? it rather silent now
[08:40:23] <Simon Josefsson> ok, working better now. perhaps just poor mic usage
[08:40:25] <becarpenter> asking for issues not already raised
[08:43:33] <becarpenter> harald channels jorge: assuming people know what the're doing, the boilerplate in IDs is legally redundant
[08:44:21] <becarpenter> scott bradner: yes but non-IETF readers including lawyers don't know this and removing it raises legal issues. Arguing for leaving it in there.
[08:46:35] --- resnick has joined
[08:46:57] --- resnick has left
[08:48:54] <becarpenter> me: agrees that boilerplate changes are a pain to manage but believes that initial boilerplate matters for dealing with corporate lawyers
[08:50:14] <Simon Josefsson> (if the person who asked questions right now used a mike, it isn't working properly)
[08:51:26] <becarpenter> that was me and I was hearing the audio coming back
[08:52:25] <becarpenter> so, seems to be a good chance of reducing required boilerplate, but no consensus established yet.
[08:52:57] <becarpenter> Next question, should the -incoming draft include the boilerplate (and which of it?)
[08:53:51] <becarpenter> bradner: only the legally relevant bit, and if all it does is point to BCP79, it can be invariant but could allow Trust to update if there's a strong reason
[08:54:28] <becarpenter> klensin: worried about Trust being able to supersede a BCP
[08:55:07] <becarpenter> harald (personal) agrees
[08:55:27] <becarpenter> klensin: suggests putting starting text in an ION
[08:56:04] <becarpenter> bradner: should we give gist of the text in the BCP?
[08:56:32] <becarpenter> klensin: risk of getting bogged down, better to externalize it
[08:57:50] <becarpenter> will take this to the ML...
[08:58:19] <becarpenter> straw poll: boilerplate out of BCP?
[08:58:29] <becarpenter> yes 11
[08:58:34] <becarpenter> against none
[09:00:08] <becarpenter> harald: next steps are prepare outgoing doc for WGLC, and take resolution of incoming issues to ML
[09:00:30] <becarpenter> some discussion now of reorg of incoming draft:
[09:00:37] <becarpenter> 1. definitions
[09:00:45] <becarpenter> 2. explanation
[09:00:53] <becarpenter> 3. nromative/legal text
[09:01:24] --- yjs has left: Disconnected.
[09:01:30] <becarpenter> does room agree with this layout?
[09:01:36] <becarpenter> no complaints
[09:02:12] <becarpenter> klensin: is it safe to WGLC outgoing until incoming is stable?
[09:03:00] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> I think that is a good question. i would personally argue for WGLCing it, but not doing the IETF Last Call
[09:03:24] <hardie@jabber.psg.com> You want to be able to say "it's done, we've moved on" in order to avoid revisiting decisions, but final coordination might need to wait.
[09:03:46] --- sbrim has left
[09:03:54] <becarpenter> Yes ted, Harald agrees
[09:04:40] <becarpenter> any other issues?
[09:04:47] <becarpenter> ....
[09:04:52] <becarpenter> meeting closed....
[09:05:10] --- sbrim has joined
[09:05:21] --- Simon Josefsson has left
[09:05:25] --- sbrim has left
[09:05:32] --- josoinin has left
[09:26:01] --- tonyhansen has joined
[09:29:35] --- tonyhansen has left
[09:36:33] --- becarpenter has left
[10:01:16] --- hardie@jabber.psg.com has left
[11:06:34] --- frank has joined