On 2009-01-11 10:55, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Er, is that a Last Call comment on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights
>> and draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming? A bit late, if so.
>
> Brian, "too late" makes sense for stray comments.
>
> It doesn't make sense when we discover that a spec doesn't work. There
> have been quite a few comments and events that make concretely clear
> that this 'spec' doesn't work, and that the proposed fix introduces
> significant new problems, even assuming that it 'fixes' the primary
> problem.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the new copyright regime
doesn't work for all-new documents, or for documents whose original
contributors have agreed to the new regime.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> You keep referring to this as a 'transition' problem as if that
> minimizes the problem. Even assuming that the label is formally
> correct, it's clear that there is nothing brief about the transition nor
> minimal about the impact.
>
> Like most infrastructure changes, "transition" is a strategic, long-term
> concern.
Yes. I have IPv6-shaped scars to prove that. That's exactly why I
support the notion of a short-term fix to give us time to agree
on an enduring solution.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf