Re: draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> As I understand it, Scott's preference would be that, at the 
> time the RFC Editor and the IESG signed off on a given document, 
> the author be required to post an I-D that contained an "option 
> 1" or "option 2" statement, thereby transferring the appropriate 
> rights.

yes - that way it would be unambiguous as to what copyrights
(as opposed to patent rights) were being given

IDs (even if they are removed by the IETF) are archived many
places around the net so the extent of the grant of copyright
(basically it comes down to withholding the right to make
derivative works or not - which is not just an IETF issue, 
it also goes for RFC Editor-only documents - for example republishing
another SDO's standard to make it available for free (with teh other SDO's
support))   - I think this is better than having the only record be 
in private email to the RFC Editor

Scott