Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Fwd: PKCS#9 and #10

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 11:37:06 -0500

Hello,

Is there any way we can address this?  Ben, current AD is assuming the
transfer didn't happen even though it was complete.  There's no marker
attached to the datatracker record to indicate the transfer for these 2
documents happened.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:00 PM Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi Kathleen,
>
> On 2019-07-30 21:29, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am not sure how I can attach this change in the copyright and change
> > control status to RFC2985 and RFC2986.  The IPR disclosure page doesn't
> > quite fit as the license is specific to the standard and opening it up
> > further for use.  For the other PKCS documents, we did a revision of the
> > RFC.  I'd like this to not be lost with me and for others doing work with
> > these standards to know that it is fine for them to do so.  Any ideas?
>
> IPR declarations carry forward through "obsoletes" and "replaces" document
> relationships, so if a new RFC marks the previous one as obsoleted, the
> IPR declaration should show up for any new RFCs for the same standard.
>
> Registering the change for the current RFCs seems to be the right thing
> to do.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>         Henrik
>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:24:08 -0600

There's been context-away.

As Henrik suggested, you _could_ enter them as IPR disclosures (with the 
pdf as an attachment), and those would come up in searches on any 
documents that obsoleted/modified these.

Why does that not seem the right thing to do?

RjS

On 1/15/21 10:37 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> attached to the datatracker record to indicate the transfer for these 
> 2 documents happened.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:00 PM Henrik Levkowetz 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Kathleen,
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:31:32 -0800

To reintroduce a smidgeon more context, I kicked things into motion by
noting that https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/discusses/ lists a document
as having a 1031-day-old Discuss, and looking at the ballot positions
indicates that there was a need to follow up on the licensing.

I am not 100% confident that I would think to look at the IPR declarations
against that document to attempt to resolve such a situation, but I also
don't have any better ideas for where to put something in a mechanical way
(i.e., that doesn't rely on the possibly-former AD updating a ballot
position).

-Ben

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:44:13 -0600

If the audience is only the IESG (or future IESGs), adding comments to 
each of the documents with a pointer to a place where the pdf lives 
might be enough. There's not a mechanic for capturing a pdf (or any 
file) as a comment on a doc.

But if the audience is people looking at the main page of the documents, 
then the IPR disclosure path is the best I can thing of so far.

If the trust had a place they wanted to put documents like this where 
the public could see them via URL, you could add an additonalURL to the 
documents pointing to it. I've wondered where the trust keeps grants on 
pre-5378 documents for example - might be nice if those were public if 
possible.

RjS

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 21:57:22 +0000

It is my understanding that the IETF's IPR disclosure mechanism is primarily (exclusively?) targeted towards patent IP.  I'm not sure that adding a copyright-related disclosure into a patent database increases transparency.  OTOH, the Trust's web page is primarily concerned about copyright (and trademark) rights.  Insofar, it may be better if we find an appropriate home on the Trust webpage for this.
Stephan

On 1/15/21, 13:46, "Trustees on behalf of Robert Sparks" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    RjS

    _______________________________________________
    Trustees mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 16:05:04 -0600

Well, we've got two trustees on the thread so far :)

Can one of you take the token to find out if the trust is willing to 
publicly home this document (and maybe others), and if so, let us know 
how to point to it?

Then the "Additional Resources" approach  approach would work with no 
further datatracker changes.

RjS

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 22:06:21 +0000

As a Trustee, I would support such a move.
S.

On 1/15/21, 14:05, "Robert Sparks" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    RjS

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Jan 2021 22:24:12 -0500

>>      I've wondered where the trust keeps grants on pre-5378 documents
>>      for example - might be nice if those were public if possible.

At the moment, nowhere, which I believe is yet another oversight for the 
trust to clean up.

The trust has a nice new web site and I think it would be easy enough to 
add another page in the Assets section to list copyright assignments 
beyond the general BCP 78 rights and we could put it there. Somewhere we 
have a bunch of assignments from the outhors of some old RFCs which should 
go there, too.

I agree this does not make sense as an IPR disclosure since those are 
intended for patents.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 09:31:17 -0500

This is about transfer of change control.  For RFC 5208, the fact that the transfer had taken place was put in the document itself.  Now, people want a way to save a companion document that is a PDF that actually makes the transfer.  I agree that these need to be kept somewheer, and the current IPR system is not the place because this transfer has nothing to do with patents.

Russ

> On Jan 15, 2021, at 4:57 PM, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:05:59 +0000

The Trust has a meeting next week, I’ll add it to agenda and it’ll give the rest of the trustees a chance to discuss.  I think the proposal of a CR section on the trust site listing this seems to have legs.

Glenn 

> On Jan 16, 2021, at 6:31 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>> noting that https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/discusses/__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!8RMMCmIVaxJQXIHC1YWQww2m7IIouudktlo8Dd5t0naj6MEHFqAsmyc-X_M2deff$  lists a document
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!8RMMCmIVaxJQXIHC1YWQww2m7IIouudktlo8Dd5t0naj6MEHFqAsmyc-X9dqBLVS$ 
>> 
>>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!8RMMCmIVaxJQXIHC1YWQww2m7IIouudktlo8Dd5t0naj6MEHFqAsmyc-X7sggzWH$ 
>> 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!8RMMCmIVaxJQXIHC1YWQww2m7IIouudktlo8Dd5t0naj6MEHFqAsmyc-X9dqBLVS$ 
> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees__;!!PIZeeW5wscynRQ!8RMMCmIVaxJQXIHC1YWQww2m7IIouudktlo8Dd5t0naj6MEHFqAsmyc-X7sggzWH$