"Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com> writes:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Josefsson" <simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:30 PM
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
Assuming that I'm not the only one who sees the recent patterns
I don't think you are alone with that impression. The process you
outline (posting preliminary versions in draft-* form) sounds great to
Mmmmm ... I think that one thing that the ipr working group got absolutey
was the decision not to try and craft legally suitable wording for
property rights, rather delegating that task.
This sounds like a suggestion to restart the ipr wg, perhaps in the hope of
getting a different outcome:-)
I don't think that is the intention at all. This is about the process
used by the IETF Trust. Publishing material early and improving them
incrementally is something the IETF has been good at.
I would however agree with the suggestion that a complicated (to me as a lay
person) document should be accompanied by a non-legally binding lay
eg as to why it is thought suitable to cut the review period from 28 to 14
or why a reference to the BSD licence should be thought adequate.
The problem with these non-binding documents is that they are often
inaccurate and it is difficult to reach closure on what should be in
them. It may be better to keep the legally binding document as clear as
possible, and to get as many as possible to review and understand them.
I suggested it earlier, and the IETF Trust response was at least
not negative to the idea. Hopefully it can be implemented. This would
also solve the problem of recording the history of document drafts, and
making sure documents are readily available via IETF mirrors even if the
main site is down or material is removed from it, which is another
Ietf mailing list