That is why I really want to see a specific example of harm (which I note SM
has refused to do).
This is the sort of case where it is very easy to make the wrong decision if
people are allowed to waffle on about what they imagine to be high principle
when the rules were made the way they are to support important real world
requirements.
If we are to discuss this further, I want to see an example.
<eom>
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com>wrote:
To be honest, I'm not even clear on what the issue is.
If an organization creates a BCP in its own context based on the
experiences of its constituents, and then the IETF uses that material to
inform its own BCP on the same subject, and reasonable permission and
attribution are given, what constitutes "change control"? The IETF controls
its version, and the other organization controls its own.
For example, OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD. Who now has change control?
Does that even mean anything?
Apart from copyright matters, I think the only problem arises when there's
debate over whose version is the "official" one. But that's a matter of the
perception that exists outside of the two organizations. Otherwise, aren't
they merely two perspectives on the same subject matter, and that's that?
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf