IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00 and the risk of "false RFCs"

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> Sat, 19 February 2005 02:03 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10879 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:03:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D2KJi-0004P4-Ch for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:25:59 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D2Jny-00012j-5f; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:53:10 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D2JfX-0004xa-Cz for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:44:27 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09164 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:44:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D2K1I-0003qC-FA for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:06:57 -0500
Received: from eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.9.49]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1J1iOKw015129; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:44:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from thunk (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66]) by eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id j1J1iOQp004434; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:44:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thunk (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j1J1iNLK006288; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:44:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from sommerfeld@localhost) by thunk.east.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3/Submit) id j1J1iNJu006287; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:44:23 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: thunk.east.sun.com: sommerfeld set sender to sommerfeld@sun.com using -f
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050219010211.GJ25430@archimedes.ucr.edu>
References: <20050218171352.GA18414@nic.fr> <20050218134018.GA47441@mail26b.sbc-webhosting.com> <20050219010211.GJ25430@archimedes.ucr.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1108777462.28925.266.camel@thunk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.325
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:44:22 -0500
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00 and the risk of "false RFCs"
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 20:02, Don Armstrong wrote:

> Why bother to use legal means to do this at all, when there are
> perfectly adequate technical measures to identify an official RFC from
> an unofficial one?

the people most likely to be harmed by an unofficial RFC would be the
ones who would not know how to check the signature.



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email