On 2009-07-20, at 16:44, "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge(_dot_)Contreras(_at_)wilmerhale(_dot_)com
> wrote:
I apologize if my unfortunate use of the term "future-proofing" has
caused angst. But I was referring to the proposal made by Harald
Alvestrand, as a member of the community, not a proposal made by the
Trust. Harald's proposal should not be taken as an indication of the
Trust's intentions. I believe that Russ and I were merely saying that
Harald's proposal seemed reasonable. If other members of the
community
disagree, then that's fine too.
No, no angst over the term. I find the idea fetching, in principle,
too, but I can't see how the proposed change does what is needed. If
the goal is to be able to allow the trust to relicence the code as it
sees fit, parallel with its ability to cope with the license of rfc
text, then I get the purpose of the change. If this is just to avoid
the bureaucracy of publishing a new rfc then no, sorry, I don't think
that's a good idea. The bureaucratic hurdles are there to find
consensus, and I see no reason to make this a special case. If we
think rfc production is too bureaucratic, let's fix that.
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf