IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Sun, 19 July 2009 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@harvard.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C973A6C3E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cx-ZcnaNMmOp for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2F03A6C38 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id BCF4C1AABBDC; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:29:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: henk@ripe.net, sob@harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
In-Reply-To: <4A62F619.2030000@ripe.net>
Message-Id: <20090719112919.BCF4C1AABBDC@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:29:19 -0400
From: sob@harvard.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:31:37 -0000

> Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? 

I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes
nor did I see a statement from the Trust saying that there
are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic
reasons

maybe there were such statements and I missed them

what I did see was a bunch of changes without anything
that said specifically what problem each change was
trying to solve (not a "justification" for the change but a reason
that any change is needed at all)

we have been changing the IETF's IPR rules far too often
(and I'm in no small way responsible for many of the changes)
we should get out of that mode and only be making changes
where there is a speific need to do so.

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email