IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> Mon, 21 February 2005 23:53 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 SAA00504 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:53:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D3Nir-0000XR-UG for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:16:19 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D3LGV-0003Ya-Sd; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:38:51 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D3JpQ-0006Dd-Bx for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:06:48 -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 PAA08148 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:06:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D3KBd-0003L8-IW for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:29:49 -0500
Received: from eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.9.49]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1LK6bhl011986; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:06:37 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 129.148.19.3 (punchin-sommerfeld.East.Sun.COM [129.148.19.3]) by eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id j1LK6aQp025520; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:06:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
In-Reply-To: <1108954426.9227.2.camel@tyrosine>
References: <20050221021306.897F122ADB7@newdev.harvard.edu> <1108954426.9227.2.camel@tyrosine>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ASCII"
Message-Id: <1109016336.66695.8.camel@unknown.hamachi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.325
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:05:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 21:53, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> Why is this a concern? There is currently nothing preventing 1000
> different documents from claiming to define any given standard. It would
> make more sense to ensure that only one document can claim to be the
> IETF standard for a given protocol. Once that's possible, there's no
> harm in allowing standards documents to be modified as much as people
> desire.

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.  

						- Bill



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email