Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> Tue, 22 February 2005 09:07 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 EAA02570 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:07:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D3WNp-00057N-Co for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:31:10 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D3MKq-0003Ww-SV; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:47:24 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D3KM2-0003XT-LT for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:30 -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 PAA12963 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([213.162.118.85] ident=Debian-exim) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D3KiI-0004KX-EE for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:03:31 -0500
Received: from tyrosine.codon.org.uk ([213.162.118.93]) by cavan.codon.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.43) id 1D3KLi-0007ge-Kq; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:40:17 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <1109016336.66695.8.camel@unknown.hamachi.org>
References: <20050221021306.897F122ADB7@newdev.harvard.edu> <1108954426.9227.2.camel@tyrosine> <1109016336.66695.8.camel@unknown.hamachi.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:40:07 +0000
Message-Id: <1109018407.7578.2.camel@tyrosine>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 213.162.118.93
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on cavan.codon.org.uk
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1 (built Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:06:07 +0200)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cavan.codon.org.uk)
X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt
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: 1.9 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 15:05 -0500, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

> I fail to see the harm in requiring folks redistributing modified standards
> documents to 1) notify the IETF that they're doing so 2) permit the IETF to 
> use the text and then make further modifications as part of future standards work.  

I think there are certainly strong arguments for permitting the IETF to
incorporate derived works into future standards, but I'm not that
convinced by the need to notify the IETF - the vast majority of
derivations are unlikely to be interesting, and the effort required to
process notifications may be large. Regardless, I'd view this situation
as a significant improvement over the current one.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org


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