Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

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

 





On Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:02:23 AM -0700 todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or
Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???

Heh. "Network" isn't an IETF working group; the phrase "Network Working Group" at the top of RFC's is a historical nod to the group that started the series.

In this particular case, we expect the appeals process to be binding upon ISOC and it's board because it was approved by that board, as all IETF process documents must be.


Before you start spouting audit-speak at us and quoting practices which were not intended for an organization like the IETF and are not relevant to it, you could at least do your homework.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+@xxxxxxx>
  Sr. Research Systems Programmer
  School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
  Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA


_______________________________________________

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]