Re: List moderator action

On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 3:42 PM Jay Daley <[email protected]> wrote:

> > On 6 May 2026, at 04:58, Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 1:25 AM Simon Josefsson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Where does it follow from https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/ that
> >> IESG statements override BCP9, BCP78 etc?
> >>
> >> I can't find the term 'IESG statement' in any of BCP9, BCP78 etc
> >> documents.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yes, this is my point, even though I agree with the IESG statement.
> >
> > That means we need Brad Biddle or equivalent to fix this one. What a
> mess.
>
> No we don’t.  Despite the multiple claims by armchair lawyers,


Well, are you a lawyer?

there is no legal issue, risk or confusion here,


Are you sure?


> just an ordinary disagreement of interpretation.  People will always
> disagree with the interpretation of a document but in the IETF, the
> interpretation of the IESG (subject to the appeals process) is final.  Just
> because someone disagrees with them doesn't mean there’s any form of
> structural failure, imminent legal threat, etc.
>

It's wrong because the definition of "Contribution" is imprecise. I think
we'd all agree you can put a "no-derivatives" clause on an I-D. But the
definitions in  RFC 3978 conflate all contributions.

It's right there:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3978#section-5.2

Which part of BCP 78 prevents me from disallowing derivative works of any
IETF contribution (like this email)? (which I am not doing, because I am
not an epic pain)

thanks,
Rob