On 2009-01-11 10:55, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, is that a Last Call comment on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights
and draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming? A bit late, if so.
Brian, "too late" makes sense for stray comments.
It doesn't make sense when we discover that a spec doesn't work. There
have been quite a few comments and events that make concretely clear
that this 'spec' doesn't work, and that the proposed fix introduces
significant new problems, even assuming that it 'fixes' the primary
problem.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the new copyright regime
doesn't work for all-new documents, or for documents whose original
contributors have agreed to the new regime.
and layering onto it a hack that imposes even more impact, is
not a fix.
Look, the IPR WG, and all those who reviewed its drafts, including
me, missed that fact that there was a transition problem that should
have been covered in those drafts. I'm sorry, I made a mistake, as
Basil Fawlty once said. We need to fix that mistake.
You keep referring to this as a 'transition' problem as if that
minimizes the problem. Even assuming that the label is formally
correct, it's clear that there is nothing brief about the transition nor
minimal about the impact.
Like most infrastructure changes, "transition" is a strategic, long-term
concern.
Yes. I have IPv6-shaped scars to prove that. That's exactly why I
support the notion of a short-term fix to give us time to agree
on an enduring solution.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf