On 2009-01-11 09:52, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees' proposed >> short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/- cutting and pasting >> some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in 5378 to mend, but let's get that >> off the critical path. > > > I can't begin to guess at the logic that uses Larry's somewhat bizarre > assertion as a basis for trying to press approval of this clearly and > substantially problematic proposal. I was responding to JCK and Ted Ts'o. I didn't intend to comment on Larry's remarks in any way, shape or form. It's reasonably well established that IANAL. Please take my comment as a direct reponse to the Subject header of this thread. > To create a paraphrase, what part of "neither short term nor a fix" did > you not understand? I understand. I disagree. > > The concept of "short term" never applies to infrastructure changes, and > as Fred pointed out -- ableit again my paraphrase -- we are messing with > something deep in the IETF's processing infrastructure. > > Equally, taking something that already imposes unnecessarily broad > impact, Er, is that a Last Call comment on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights and draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming? A bit late, if so. > and layering onto it a hack that imposes even more impact, is > not a fix. Look, the IPR WG, and all those who reviewed its drafts, including me, missed that fact that there was a transition problem that should have been covered in those drafts. I'm sorry, I made a mistake, as Basil Fawlty once said. We need to fix that mistake. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf