ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

2009-08-18 10:51:36
Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:

On 2009-08-18 07:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
This is another reason why the current approach of getting IETF
consensus on an RFC and publishing should be preferred.  Compare RFC
5377.  It is a well defined process, and unless there is consensus that
the approach is broken I believe we should use the normal process.  Can
we start and agree on a problem statement before finding solutions?

It would be serious overkill to do this for trivial legal verbiage changes,
which is what we've been discussing for the last 9 months.

Trivial verbiage changes can have significant practical consequences.
If there is consensus around a trivial change, writing an I-D about it
and getting it published as an RFC should not be difficult.  If it takes
9 month to get that done, something else is broken.  I don't see how
specifying an alternative publication and consensus gathering path for
the Trust will avoid the same problem.

/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>