Steve - I understand the intent - Let me one question... is
this true of all
RFC's today? i.e. that any time they are revised that a new
work and not a
BIS is created? The reason is that I seem to recall several
RFC's that were
revised numerous times without obsolescing the previous
document RFC number.
My feeling is that if this is true then this model is
inconsistent across
all WG's and all issued RFC's.
As to what needs to happen, the 100,000 meter goal should be
to create some
readily navigable and easily described set of T's and C's
for participating
in the program. To that end I might suggest that a new class
of Internet
Document be created to complement the ION's and that would
be a IETF/IESG
Policy Document or IPD. These would be specific to the
Policies and
Management Processes of the Entity and would be separated in
that they could
be based on RFC's but also carry revision dates. That would
allow the number
of documents in the process to be limited so that it doesn't
take someone
like Jorge two weeks of formal review as a General Counsel
to understand
what the T's and C's and impact on their Organization would
be.
My intent in this is to bring to light that while RFC's are
an amazing
process for group collaboration that there are other aspects
of contractual
process that make it better to "keep it as simple and
easily understood as
possible"...
Just my two cents.
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb cs.columbia.edu>
To: "todd glassey" <tglasseyearthlink.net>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietfjck.com>; "Frank Ellermann"
<nobodyxyzzy.claranet.de>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<brczurich.ibm.com>;
<ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Lawyer's advice on boilerplate in RFCs and
I-Ds
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:43:18 -0700
> "todd glassey" <tglasseyearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Steven - Thanks for responding!
>>
>> I would like to respectfully disagree with your
retort... RFC's like
>> any other document published in the IETF are
regularly upgraded and
>> republished
>
> Yes, but the RFC number is changed when that happens.
That's precisely
> my point. See http://w
ww.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/rfcdiff.html for the
> best-known example -- a one-word change resulted in RFC
1409 being
> replaced by RFC 1416.
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbi
a.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|
