On 2009-01-11 09:52, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees' proposed
short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/- cutting and pasting
some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in 5378 to mend, but let's get that
off the critical path.
I can't begin to guess at the logic that uses Larry's somewhat bizarre
assertion as a basis for trying to press approval of this clearly and
substantially problematic proposal.
I was responding to JCK and Ted Ts'o.
I didn't intend to comment on Larry's remarks in any way, shape
or form. It's reasonably well established that IANAL. Please take my
comment as a direct reponse to the Subject header of this thread.
To create a paraphrase, what part of "neither short term nor a fix" did
you not understand?
I understand. I disagree.
The concept of "short term" never applies to infrastructure changes, and
as Fred pointed out -- ableit again my paraphrase -- we are messing with
something deep in the IETF's processing infrastructure.
Equally, taking something that already imposes unnecessarily broad
Er, is that a Last Call comment on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights
and draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming? A bit late, if so.
and layering onto it a hack that imposes even more impact, is
not a fix.
Look, the IPR WG, and all those who reviewed its drafts, including
me, missed that fact that there was a transition problem that should
have been covered in those drafts. I'm sorry, I made a mistake, as
Basil Fawlty once said. We need to fix that mistake.
Ietf mailing list