Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)

On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 12:56 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi, I wrote it up:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative/
>
> I'm happy for anyone to take that off my hands and create a derivative
> work.
>
> In off-list discussion, it was clarified that Section 3 and Section 4 are
> non-normative.
>

Hi,

Just to further clarify. There are three problems.

Brian has noted the unclear relation of IESG Statements to other processes
here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/laVgsxGaooJC1iblImvln_5cyJg/

Scott Bradner notes there is a good rationale for I-Ds with no-derivatives
clauses:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/v5-b1uByAhX8drr8Ti3oUiKepmU/

Thirdly, the IESG Statement is wrong. "Hence ..."
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/

"Sections 1, 2, 5, and 6 of this document are normative, the other sections
are informative." So, you can't cite Section 3 for the rationale.

We have to make a change similar to what I wrote. I think my document is
OK, but if someone else wants to write a more officious-sounding one,
that's OK too.

I do not think this problem represents a threat to the IETF's IPR
discipline with regard to documents. It's just about correspondence.

thanks,
Rob