By the way, the author (Aboulmagd) has in the meantime informed the RFC-Editor that the "no derivitive work" clause can be removed. So this doc now has the same provisions as the on Bala adn Lin documents. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob@harvard.edu] > Sent: vrijdag 24 januari 2003 15:15 > To: ewgray@graiymage.com; Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > Cc: iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational > > > > However, unless > > I'm severely confused (which is always possible), the > prohibition against > > derivative works came from the ITU side of the fence, > > the prohibition is more not used all that often - two main cases where > is is > 1/ vendor work publish for the information of the community > 2/ republishing a standard from another SDO > > just like we would not want the ITU "fixing" an IETF standard w/o our > input it seems a reasonable desire to not have the IETF "fix" an ITU > (or ETSI etc) standard w/o their involvement > > Scott >