RE: other points to look for in this draft [Fwd: draft of rights in submissions draft]

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Scott (and IPR WG chairs)..

The below email made me go through the 2 IPR WG docs.

I have these comments:

- sect 3.3 sub (E)
  I think it is (technically) better to speak about MIB and PIB modules
  instead of MIBs and PIBs. There is only one single MIB and it is 
  composed of multiple MIB modules. Same for PIB.
- sect 4.2
  I wonder if one should not be allowed to extract MIB/PIB modules
  from such documents. If they do document such proprietary modules,
  and you are not allowed to extract them, then I wonder what use
  they have.
- sect 5.6 sub a.
  Again, pls use MIB and PIB modules.
  I also wonder if we need to also explicitly specify the short statement
  we have created for IANA maintained MIB modules. It is:

    An IANA maintained MIB module must have the following text in
    the DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-IDENTITY macro:
 
      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year).  The
      initial version of this MIB module was published
      in RFC xxxx. For full legal notices see the RFC
      itself or see:  http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html

  If not, then fine. Just wanted to make sure we do so (or not) consciously
- Sect 7.3
  I wonder.. about the last sentence of the 1st para.
                      The IETF does not need, nor does it obtain, the
     right to let derivative works be created outside of the IETF
     Standards Process.
  Per sect 3.3. sub (E) you allow to extract code fragments and MIB/PIB modules
  for usefor any purpose? Is that not also to include it in vendor products?
  So do the 2 statements conflict?
  I am not good at legal (or legal-like) language. So I may just be
  mis-undestanding what is written down.

- Nit: I think your reference to the iprwg-technology doc should be updated.


Bert
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: draft of rights in submissions draft
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
> To: iab@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, klensin@jck.com, 
> rfc-ediitor@rfc-editor.org
> 
> 
> I've reworked the 'rights in contributions' draft in response to the
> discussions started by Bob & John
> 
> I split the contributions into IETF and RFC Editor with different 
> requirements
> and added text about a WG or the RFC Editor  being able to look at
> a ID with restricted rights grants just to see if the ID should be
> accepted then requiring teh ID be resubmitted with the correct
> rights boilerplate before work can start
> 
> this is a prereview - sec 7 may need more tweaking to be sure its
> proper after the split
> 
> comments please
> 
> Scott
> 
> ---------