Re: RFC 5378 "contributions"

> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> 
>> However, the theme were present in several discussions about simplifying
>> the procedures.  One link (but probably not the best one) would be:
>> 
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/3738
>> 
>> Implicit in that argument is that contributors release their own
>> contribution under a license, and do not vouch for anyone else's
>> contribution, and that others can re-use the material under that
>> license.  This is the normal procedure in the free software community.
>
> Um, I just looked at that thread, and it was talking more about
> whether or not SDO's should be allowed to "fork" an RFC specification
> without getting prior permission from the IETF or not, and worries
> about "fake" RFC's.  That has nothing to do with shoving all of the
> liabilities associating with assuring that all contributions following
> the IPR responsibilities onto the I-D author/editors.
>
> Maybe you thought it was implicit in the argument, but it certainly
> wasn't obvious to me.  So if your goal was to advance that point of
> view, it probably wasn't the best strategy as an advocate.

I didn't mean to imply that I were aware of the transition issue at the
time.  Sorry for the confusion.  My point was to suggest that we reduce
complexity and re-use something that has been proven to work for many
years.  The current problem appear to stem from a complex solution and
too little review.

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