On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 07:23:20AM -0800, TS Glassey wrote:
> Ted called me on that I was using a Term of Art which has not been formally
> defined here in the IETF so lets define the term SPONSOR ("Sponsor",
> "SPONSOR") for use in the IETF's IP Processes.
Todd, you just took a private e-mail that I sent to you and reposted
part of it on the list. Some would consider that a breach of e-mail
etiquette. I don't particularly care in this particular case, but
fact of the matter is that "defining Sponsor for use in the IETF's IP
Processes" is out of scope for the IETF mailing list. If the IPR-wg
thinks that it is even necessary to define that Term of Art, they can
do so on the IPR-wg mailing list.
If the IPR-wg don't think it's in scope, there may not be any IETF
mailing lists where the discussion of defining the term Sponsor may be
in scope. If there are no documents where work group consensus
determines that such a term is needed either for discussing a
particular draft document or to use in a particular draft document,
that would not be a surprising result.
In any case, it is not in scope of the IETF list, and I would gently
ask that you take this discussion elsewhere.
Thank you.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf