Re: draft-higgs (Re: [ga-roots] Capture and Diversion)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 15:31 04.05.2001 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>At 01:45 PM 5/4/01 +0200, you wrote:
>>At 11:05 02.05.2001 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>>Then can we all assume ICANN will fully comply with this IETF document 
>>>once it becomes an RFC:
>>>
>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-root-defs-00.txt
>>>
>>>The DNSO should be fully supporting this effort to prevent collisions 
>>>between roots.
>>
>>on this point, I can claim to speak with a tiny bit of authority.
>>
>>just to make the formalities clear:
>>
>>1) The author of draft-higgs chose not to grant to the IETF the rights to
>>    publish his draft as an RFC, even if it wanted to. See the copyright
>>    notice in the preface ("is NOT offered in conformance with...")
>
>And once again you are incorrect. It's published as an internet draft 
>using the IETF's own "boilerplate" wording - I chose "Mandatory Statement" 
>#3 as it does not grant derivative rights:
>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
>
>    This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance
>    with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF
>    with any rights other than to publish as-is.
>
>Rights are granted to publish "as-is" without changes to the content or 
>relinquishing the copyright to the ISOC. In other words, you can't alter 
>or modify it, and create a derivative work to remove liability from ICANN 
>for creating/causing a name space collision.

You miss the little detail that an RFC is a derivative work from the 
internet-draft, and that RFCs are ALWAYS copyright ISOC.

>>2) The author of draft-higgs has not asked the RFC Editor or the IESG to
>>    consider publishing his document as any type of RFC (informational or
>>    BCP; standards-track would be inappropriate for this text)
>
>Correct. I will ask on the next draft. This version is the first draft and 
>not ready for prime time. How many first drafts get published as RFCs? 
>Almost none.

In fact, only one out of ten internet-drafts gets to be an RFC at all.


>>3) There has been no indication that a request for such publication would
>>    be met with a positive response. Especially, there has been no
>>    demonstration of the IETF consensus required for BCP publication; info
>>    RFCs are not the IETF's opinion about anything.
>
>There has also been no indication that a request for such publication 
>would be met with a negative response. There have been no negative 
>comments received. All have been positive. I'm not counting IAB comments, 
>as they are part of the problem.

I guess nobody who disliked the draft thought comments to the author would 
have any benefit.

>The bottom line is that there are no collisions in the name space - 
>anywhere - and this is the only way to prevent them. Cat herding, if you will.
>
>So, if you insist on opposing this draft, you are really voting for a root 
>fragmentation. That's a fine example for the IETF chair to set.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html