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

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> Wed, 23 February 2005 04:02 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 XAA27256 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:02:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D3o5d-0007ME-2F for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:25:34 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D3UCt-0002I0-DQ; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:11:43 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D3M6Y-0001Ek-DX for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:32:38 -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 RAA23091 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:32:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D3MSp-00075p-7h for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:55:40 -0500
Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1LMWUhl002497; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:32:31 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 129.148.19.3 (punchin-sommerfeld.East.Sun.COM [129.148.19.3]) by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id j1LMWTOp005768; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:32:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
In-Reply-To: <1109018407.7578.2.camel@tyrosine>
References: <20050221021306.897F122ADB7@newdev.harvard.edu> <1108954426.9227.2.camel@tyrosine> <1109016336.66695.8.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> <1109018407.7578.2.camel@tyrosine>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1109025089.66695.29.camel@unknown.hamachi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.325
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:31:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
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: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 15:40, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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. 

Given how many internet drafts are handled by the IETF, I suspect the IETF will cope.  (I don't actually think any new mechanism is required -- the i-d
submission mechanism will do).

> Regardless, I'd view this situation as a significant improvement over 
> the current one.

I don't think it's all that different from the current situation.

						- Bill




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