Eric Rescorla wrote:
avri@xxxxxxx writes:
I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an
attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as
specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process
for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think we need explosive
bolts or any other prearranged separation model.
Having chosen Scenario 0, we have opted for the simplest of the
solutions. Any escape clause, other then a statement that the
agreement can be amended upon consensus of the IETF and agreement of
the ISOC BoT (the current situation for any process BCP) would reopen
much of the complexity we decided to avoid in selecting this Scenario.
I'm afraid I can't agree with this argument. The essence of good
contractual arrangements is that they commit you to the terms that
were mutually agreed upon. This prevents conflicts in the future.
It's kind of a good fences makes good neighbors kind of thing.
It's true that nailing things down is a little more work initially,
but in my experience it pays off in terms of keeping people's
visions of the arrangements consistent in the future.
IMHO, with the existing separation clause in section 7, and *if*
the two "irrevocable" and "irrevocably" I suggested in other
messages are added, we don't in fact need a separate agreement.
(I have changed my mind on this.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf