Subject: Re: secsh meeting in pittsburgh: call for agenda items.

From: Niels Provos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:24:53 -0400

Hi Bill,

In message <[email-masked]>, Bill Sommerfeld wri
tes:
>The document starts with the statement:
>
>   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
>   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026, except that the right to
>   produce derivative works is not granted.

>Given that derivative works may not be produced, this document cannot
>form the basis of a potential standards track document, and it would
>thus not be appropriate to devote meeting time to discussing it.
This is the mandated language by the POISED working group and the IESG.
The only thing that it prevents you from doing is assigning it to
another author without the permission of the original authors of the
draft.

When published as a standards track RFC, the standards track copyright
applies, which is according to RFC 2026:

         "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights
         Reserved.

         This document and translations of it may be copied and
         furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or
         otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation may be
         prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in
         part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
         copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such
         copies and derivative works.  However, this document itself may
         not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
         notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
         organizations, except as needed for the  purpose of developing
         Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
         defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or
         as required to translate it into languages other than English.
	[...]

This is just to prevent problems that have happened in the past where
original author attributions have been removed from drafts.

So, please allocate some time for general discussion of this draft for
the WG meeting.

Greetings,
  Niels.

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:51:03 -0400

> This is the mandated language by the POISED working group and the

The IESG member I spoke to (Jeff Schiller, CC'ed above) disagreed.  He
stated quite clearly in a phone conversation that drafts which do not
grant the right to produce derivative works are not acceptable as
potential standards track documents.

The text which is needed for standards-track candidates is:

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026

> another author without the permission of the original authors of the

Working group documents eventually become the product of the working
group as a whole.  In order to avoid wasting the work of the rest of
the contributors to the WG, we need the ability to reassign a draft to
a new document editor should an original document editor become
uncooperative or unresponsive.

> So, please allocate some time for general discussion of this draft for

I am willing to allocate time to discuss the general concept of DH
parameter negotiation within SSHv2; however, your document in its
present form is not acceptable as input to this working group.  Agenda
time will not be allocated in Pittsburgh to discuss this draft.

If you wish to appeal this ruling, you should follow the appeals
procedure documented in section 6.5 of RFC2026.  Do not expect the
answer to change.

					- Bill