Marshall Eubanks <tme(_at_)americafree(_dot_)tv> writes:
Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP
Is this a solution looking for a problem? RFC 5377 is an example of
where the IETF asks the Trust do something. What is wrong with using
the same approach in the future? The approach would be that someone
writes an I-D, there is IETF-wide last call on it, and it is either
approved or not. If it is approved, the Trust needs to act. I would
like to understand why you believe this approach is not a more suitable
one than what you propose.
2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement.
a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID from
a WG
chartered to discuss these items.
b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community.
c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue.
For 2c, whom is the note to? To only the trust or to the community? If
the former, will be trust communicate the request to the community?
4. Trust (with legal counsel) reviews the issue and comes up with a
response:
a. No, we don't think changing this is a good idea, because ...
b. Yes, we suggest to modify the text as follows ... (perhaps with
some background material why this is the answer).
I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what is and
what is not a problem into the Trust's hands. I don't believe this was
the intention when the Trust was formed. As far as I understood the
background for the Trust, it was not to control the IETF, it was to
cater for the wishes of the IETF in (mostly) copyright areas. The
approach here appears contrary to this role.
Announcements: All announcements to go to the ietf-announce list plus
the equivalent for the other streams. Discussion will take place
on the TLP mailing list.
Does this list exists now?
Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can
publish
a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP. The
Trust must explain the reason for the change.
I believe it needs be explicit that the reason has to be explained to
the community, not to only a smaller group.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf