--On Tuesday, August 27, 2024 20:16 +0000 "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Replying to Stephen's email as he was the first to reply to the > 4-week last call even if my reply is not on Stephen's supportive > point ;-) > > As there is about 1 week left for this last call, and as some > concerns were raised about the copyright, process, ... let me shed > some lights on these topics as the sponsored AD for this IETF draft: > - it is indeed an AD-sponsored IETF draft as RFC 8110 was (i.e., > not really fitting an existing WG) - with the authors, I have > checked with the IESG, the IEEE (there is a liaison statement for > this I-D), and of course the IETF trust > > The trust clearly stated about the I-D authors: "As authors they > hold a shared copyright with the IETF Trust and they both have the > ability to give the IEEE the needed rights" and "the IETF Trust > will continue in perpetuity to hold its currently held shared > rights with the authors on RFC8110 which means that RFC8110 will > remain available to the IETF to use" (even if I have hard time to > figure out why would we do so). > > Hope this clarifies completely the context for this unusual draft. > We keep learning every day :-) Éric, I suggest there are two additional bits of context. The first of these might justify an addition to the text; the second is a broader and longer-term issue: (1) At some point, IEEE will presumably produce a specification that supercedes RFC 8110. Even though 8110 is Informational (this would be even more important if it were Standards Track), it would be nice, and a kindness to readers who might otherwise look at the wrong spec, to formally obsolete 8110 and point to the replacement. A few sentences in this document that points that out and explains what the procedure would be to accomplish it would be very helpful. It would otherwise be a loose end in the transfer process. (2) As you point out, this is an unusual draft and an unusual, although not unique, situation. As the most obvious example, once W3C got going and then decided it wanted to be in the standards business, responsibility and change control for HTML was handed off to them. In a world in which more and more bodies seem to be springing up with an interest in Internet protocols and formats, perhaps it would be in the best interests of the Internet, as well as the IETF, to have a more regular (i.e., less unusual) model for such transfers of responsibility and how they, and their effects, are documented. It might be good to treat this document as a learning experience and start thinking about and documenting that broader issue. thanks, john I contin -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
