On 4/28/04 9:07 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip sent forth electrons to convey:
Acctually I was the person who originally suggested using the 'not granted'
form.....In one case an individual took an RFC I was editing, rewrote the thing
in a completely braindamaged manner and then resumbitted it with his name
on. The company then traded for several years as having 'invented' the
technology.
Would be curious to know at least the name of the RFC you were editing,
more if you're willing.
<more reasonable justification snipped>
At this point I would suggest the use of the closed grant for another
reason, we are now working on a consensus proposal, MARID.
But the boilerplate means that this consensus proposal can't derive
anything from SPF either, right?
(Unless Meng writes it.)
If we want to take a piece of crocker (HELO checks) a piece of SPF
(record spec) a piece of FSV (more record spec), and some more
contributions, tell me what allows us to do that?
<meta-note: Groan, this thread has broken into 3 threads for no good
reason.>