Re: Document Action: 'US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and HMAC-SHA)' to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



My point is only that while we have an active WG looking at the question
of license terms for the use of text from RFCs, it wouldn't be
right for the IESG to unilaterally approve a new policy, even for a
single draft. I don't believe the approved text does set a new
policy.

   Brian

Tony Hansen wrote:
And *as* one of the authors of the proposed-RFC in question, I find the
statement even more curious. Given the objections, I was proposing
different text that would have aligned the statement with text already
found in other RFCs already published.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@xxxxxxx

Sam Hartman wrote:

"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

   Brian> Tony, That would have amounted to the author and IESG
   Brian> deciding to change the IETF's policy on derivative works,
   Brian> which would have been way out of line, especially in view
   Brian> of the ongoing debate about this point in the ipr WG.

Had this sentence been added by the author it would not have changed
anything about IETF policy.



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]