]>

San Francisco CA United States of America sayrer@gmail.com

GEN General Area Dispatch derivative By reading this document ... you consent to nothing. About This Document Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the WG General Area Dispatch mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at .

Introduction This document updates Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust .

Derivative Works In , there is a quite expansive definition of "Contribution". There is also a mechanism described that limits the right to produce derivative works. This mechanism applies to Contributions. This update narrows that clause to technical specifications, like Internet-Drafts or other specifications. It no longer applies to correspondence, such as email, appeals, or YouTube videos of IETF meetings. Inserting those clauses makes it difficult for people to respond, and inhibits collaboration. The very point of collaborating about the internet over the internet. IETF correspondence MUST NOT include restrictions on derivative works. This restriction covers text that is intentionally inserted and also includes automatically inserted terms inserted by corporate email software. Both variations are disruptive. It is always possible to publish an Internet-Draft with a restrictive derivative works clause. All other Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust remain in place. Please don't be annoying.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Security Considerations This document prevents a Denial-of-Service attack.

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions.

Normative References This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this process. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. The IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo obsoletes RFCs 3978 and 4748 and, with BCP 79 and RFC 5377, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.