Re: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Now we are rehashing discussions that we had before finalising
> RFC 3668. And the underlying problem is that the boilerplate
> included in 3667 is not a simple reference to 3668.
> 
> So here is another attempt at boilerplate.
> 
>     This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
>     all provisions of RFC 3668.

A fundamental reason for revision, I thought, was to make it much more 
clearly to the contributors what their obligations are.

This kind of boilerplates aren't going to help with that.  The current 
text is pretty good in that regard: I think it should wake up the 
writer..

> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > 
> >>Pekka, that isn't the answer. You have no concept of how long it takes
> >>to negotiate the fine details of disclosures with corporate lawyers.
> >>Fixing the way the IETF handles incoming notices is not the point.
> > 
> > 
> > When you get a fine idea you want to document, and consider finding 
> > enough time to write it just before the cut-off date, go talk to the 
> > lawyers then, not at the cut-off date ?
> > 
> > 
> >>If you want critical documents to be submitted before the I-D cutoff
> >>date, there has to be some wiggle room here. The boilerplate above
> >>provides that wiggle room. 
> > 
> > 
> > It also provides (too much) wiggle room to the other direction.
> > 
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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