Scott
The 60 day difference can be used by anyone concerned to file protests over
IP issues and this is VERY important since when the iParadigm matter comes
back before the US Appellate Court (I bet Jorge is quaking already), it will
set standards which will also apply directly to the IETF and its 'process of
induced IP Theft' that this WG calls 'a contribution'. The case is due for
oral arguments in December of 2008 so you will have an answer on this pretty
quickly.
I strongly suggest that the 60 day waiting period be kept in place since it
allows for any number of oversight issues to be addressed in the publication
of any IETF IP.
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <braden@xxxxxxx>; <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <tony@xxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question
Worse, it is possible to read the current text of 2026 as
requiring, especially in the absence of an ISOC newsletter, that
a version of STD1 be published as an RFC before the clock starts
running on the waiting period. I think that would violate
common sense, especially given the interpretation of the second
paragraph of RFC 2026 Section 6.2.4 as requiring a sixty-day
waiting period between IESG action and RFC publication. I
think that interpretation is clearly against the intent of 2026,
as does the editor of 2026
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008
7:46 AM
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf