IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your comments on ...

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 26 January 2009 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7E128C105; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:56:59 -0800 (PST)
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 CBE733A68B8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:56:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, 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 NOz9FfBfLJPl for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB83F3A6880 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LRWdT-000GPL-E9; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:56:39 -0500
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:56:38 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your comments on ...
Message-ID: <9AD7061E8AD56A61A48F40C7@[192.168.1.118]>
In-Reply-To: <497E0416.80307@dcrocker.net>
References: <20090124154913.53426.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <B5720E65D2354F659809CA433C4D0C59@DGBP7M81> <p06240814c5a109bd52c0@[165.227.249.206]> <20090126134111.GB26705@shinkuro.com> <497DD87D.9010609@dcrocker.net> <20090126160126.GD9210@mit.edu> <041FB8732DA02FEFFEE5D98B@[192.168.1.118]> <1F47626F-BE7B-46AC-9B1B-7DBC600AE357@mit.edu> <tsl1vuqgcpb.fsf@live.mit.edu> <p06240813c5a3b360cc75@[10.20.30.158]> <497E0416.80307@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF Discussion <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-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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

--On Monday, January 26, 2009 10:42 AM -0800 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:

>> That list could be pre-populated with email addresses from
>> all current IETF lists to which the "note well" has been sent.

> That would seem to defeat the apparent purpose of this new
> list, namely distinct and explicit acknowledgment of the 
> IPR policy.
 
> There is a difference between passing a Note Well past someone
> who is focussing on some other task, such as contributing to a
> technical discussion, versus having subscription be solely for
> the purpose of acknowledging the IPR policy.

Such an opt-in list would also constitute a de facto IETF
Membership list which, for various reasons, we have carefully
avoided in the past.
 
> ps. I'm not commenting on the efficacy of doing this separate
> list, merely trying to be clear about its differential
> semantics.

Ditto about the consequences.
    john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status