--On Thursday, 11 October, 2007 13:54 +0300
Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>...
> I think this document is somewhat useful, and whatever you may
> think about IPRs, basically nobody has claimed that the
> technical solution is flawed (except one minor detail, easily
> solved by an RFC editor note -- see below) or undesirable.
>
> However, since there doesn't seem to be widespread support for
> this draft, an Experimental RFC seems like the most
> appropriate forward (since Experimental does not need to
> represent IETF community consensus or recommendation).
Assuming that this logic is reasonable (and, personally, I do),
the question remains as to why the document deserves the special
treatment of IESG sponsorship, rather than turning it over to
the tender mercies and independent review of the independent
submission process. If nothing else, handling it as an
independent submission would remove any suspicion that it was
being given special treatment because one of its authors was
IETF Chair.
I'm not strongly advocating that approach, just asking.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf