"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
Brian> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
writes:
Brian> My point is only that while we have an active WG looking
>> at
Brian> the question of license terms for the use of text from
Brian> RFCs, it wouldn't be right for the IESG to unilaterally
Brian> approve a new policy, even for a single draft. I don't
Brian> believe the approved text does set a new policy. Brian
>> I don't think the proposed change from one of the authors does
>> either. I think it is well within what we have recently
>> approved.
Brian> I think it's linked to the question we're discussing in IPR
Brian> about relaxing our change control, which is why I'm
Brian> hesitant. Simon is correct of course; if such a change was
Brian> successfully Last Called the IESG would (IMHO) be entitled
Brian> to approve it.
No. The question in IPR is what the IETF working group does with all
of its documents.
Authors already have the permission under our current process to relax
the change control. I have the ability to try and convince any author
they should do so.
By preventing an author from including an additional statement we've
agreed to in the license you don't prevent the author from relaxing
the change control. You simply prevent the community from knowing
about it and being able to take advantage of it.
Failing to document reality is not generally considered a virtue in these
parts:-)
Also note that the IESG has already approved a document of Simon's
with change control provisions at least as liberal as what is being
discussed here.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf