Speex dev - Apr 2009 - ietf discussion about draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex

Sorry for the delay.

On 4/13/09, Alfred E. Heggestad <aeh at db.org>
wrote:
> Ivo, could you also review the updated memo-status/copyright notice,
> located on page 1-2 ?
Is this a new standard for writing Internet drafts?  I've never seen
it in other documents.

Specifically, this part:
"This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English."

Unless it is required now by the IETF I would advise to remove it.
You are placing restrictions which do not usually appear(?) and may
otherwise conflict with IETF guidelines.

It actually differs from the standard Intellectual Property and Full
Copyright Statement clauses that proposed Standard Tracks documents
carry at the bottom.

Finally, the "no derivative works" seems a no-no to me, but I'm no
lawyer.  I for one assume Debian and other Free Culture organizations
won't be pleased.

-Ivo

Following up on my last message, to produce a standard IETF disclaimer
I remember it just being a matter of adding ipr="full3978 to the
<rfc>
element in the XML file.

-Ivo

Hm, I should have jotted down everything I wanted to say in one
message.  I forgot to mention that, in case you haven't done it, you
should send a message to the ietf-types at alvestrand.no mailing list for
public discussion and review of the proposed audio/speex media type,
since it's the common procedure AFAIK.

-Ivo

Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves wrote:
> Sorry for the delay.
> 
> On 4/13/09, Alfred E. Heggestad <aeh at db.org> wrote:
>> Ivo, could you also review the updated memo-status/copyright notice,
>> located on page 1-2 ?
> 
> Is this a new standard for writing Internet drafts?  I've never seen
> it in other documents.
> 
> Specifically, this part:
> "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
> be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
> translate it into languages other than English."
> 
> Unless it is required now by the IETF I would advise to remove it.
> You are placing restrictions which do not usually appear(?) and may
> otherwise conflict with IETF guidelines.
> 
> It actually differs from the standard Intellectual Property and Full
> Copyright Statement clauses that proposed Standard Tracks documents
> carry at the bottom.
> 
there are some changes in the IETF process between -05 and -06,
see here:

  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/


when I tried to submit -06 with ipr=full3978 it was rejected by the
submission tool. when changed to ipr="noModificationTrust200902" and
processed with xml2rfc v1.34pre3 it was accepted..

it is not very important for me which value we use here .. it should
be a license which suits the open source community and is accepted
by the IETF.

should we perhaps use the same value as the Ogg Theora RTP I-D ?
I think that both Speex and Theora codecs have similar interests here ..

> Finally, the "no derivative works" seems a no-no to me, but
I'm no
> lawyer.  I for one assume Debian and other Free Culture organizations
> won't be pleased.
> 
so let us try to make them pleased :)


/alfred

> -Ivo