By the way, the author (Aboulmagd) has in the meantime
informed the RFC-Editor that the "no derivitive work"
clause can be removed. So this doc now has the same
provisions as the on Bala adn Lin documents.
Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu]
Sent: vrijdag 24 januari 2003 15:15
To: ewgray(_at_)graiymage(_dot_)com; Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
However, unless
I'm severely confused (which is always possible), the
prohibition against
derivative works came from the ITU side of the fence,
the prohibition is more not used all that often - two main cases where
is is
1/ vendor work publish for the information of the community
2/ republishing a standard from another SDO
just like we would not want the ITU "fixing" an IETF standard w/o our
input it seems a reasonable desire to not have the IETF "fix" an ITU
(or ETSI etc) standard w/o their involvement
Scott