> On 1 Mar 2022, at 9:29 am, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Most importantly, the copyright license is broken. At the top it has > the "no derivatives" license, which is fine, Ah - I missed, that, thanks for pointing it out. I'm uncomfortable leaving change control for a key interoperability mechanism in the search market in the hands of one competitor, yet blessing it as part of the IETF stream. I think the IETF as a whole should be uncomfortable with that too, given current competition enforcement trends. As such, I believe this draft should either a) drop the "no derivatives" clause (preferred), or b) seek publication on a different stream. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
