The only thing I can dream up (without an example) is that the submitting
organization's version of something and the IETF's version end up diverging,
and the submitting organization doesn't like that. To wit, the submitting
organization wanted the added credibility of the "RFC" label without any
substantive changes to the material. But that strikes me as a failure of due
diligence more than anything.
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: Change control
That is why I really want to see a specific example of harm (which I note SM
has refused to do).
This is the sort of case where it is very easy to make the wrong decision if
people are allowed to waffle on about what they imagine to be high principle
when the rules were made the way they are to support important real world
If we are to discuss this further, I want to see an example.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
To be honest, I'm not even clear on what the issue is.
If an organization creates a BCP in its own context based on the experiences of
its constituents, and then the IETF uses that material to inform its own BCP on
the same subject, and reasonable permission and attribution are given, what
constitutes "change control"? The IETF controls its version, and the other
organization controls its own.
For example, OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD. Who now has change control? Does
that even mean anything?
Apart from copyright matters, I think the only problem arises when there's
debate over whose version is the "official" one. But that's a matter of the
perception that exists outside of the two organizations. Otherwise, aren't
they merely two perspectives on the same subject matter, and that's that?
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list