[rfc-i] draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-02 composition tools

wesley.george at twcable.com (George, Wes) Sat, 08 November 2014 07:26 UTC

From: "wesley.george at twcable.com"
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:26:37 -0500
Subject: [rfc-i] draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-02 composition tools
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOjws3YNpr-Rz+aPPq=rJC7qRD9_4D-HO0hcDt_EJG1sfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141030215618.60236.qmail@ary.lan> <5452B772.7020505@isi.edu> <BC31978F-A0F2-4C31-B68D-7E6D2029EFF0@fugue.com> <545374B2.90800@cisco.com> <1DE1D1B9-43B1-42F5-8FD5-75586161EAE1@fugue.com> <5453940E.1000107@cisco.com> <31731F66-4D2D-4AF2-8D3B-190F02196C1E@fugue.com> <5453ADBB.4020104@cisco.com> <12093BCD-14FA-475D-810F-065EEBE87872@cisco.com> <198A7BCF-CCD7-4A37-8972-2D0B0F64B250@fugue.com> <5453BA73.8090605@cisco.com> <6CE99011-9E33-4724-B9D1-C9B99897F79C@cisco.com> <5453FE17.4050400@rfc-editor.org> <CAK3OfOjws3YNpr-Rz+aPPq=rJC7qRD9_4D-HO0hcDt_EJG1sfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D082783F.3556A%wesley.george@twcable.com>

On 10/31/14, 6:00 PM, "Nico Williams" <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:


>On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
><rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> On 10/31/14 10:01 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>> Oh - that's *completely* reasonable.  I'm CC'ing the RSOC for us to
>>>  discuss this.  Assuming everyone else thinks it's a good idea, we
>>> can ask the IAOC to see if they can negotiate something.
>>
>> I would very much support doing this, though the identity management
>> person in me is entirely uncertain how we would accomplish such a
>> thing.  The IETF doesn't have members as such, so how would a vendor
>> be able to provide a limited license or discount to participants?
>
>Perhaps a "site" license for the IETF and then let the "officers" of
>the IETF (ADs, WG chairs, shepherds), decide who gets to use it, with
>some "only for I-Ds" caveat.  It's worth asking.  Worst-case we get a
>"no".

WG] We get a "no" or that they continue with the current situation, which
is that after the makers of XMLMind changed the licensing structure
between minor releases, and therefore broke a bunch of folks' toolchains
overnight when they installed the seemingly normal maintenance release
which locked out anyone without a valid purchase license, their support
people had to post a link to the directory containing old versions of the
tool so that folks could downgrade to one on the old license structure
with free personal use and resume using an (admittedly very down rev and
unsupported) version of the tool with no intention of paying for a new
one.
I could see it being attractive to them to formalize that relationship a
bit, especially if IETF is willing to pay for some support to help with
better integration into our workflow.

Wes George

Anything below this line has been added by my company?s mail server, I
have no control over it.
-----------


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.