Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 04:19:08PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >> However, the theme were present in several discussions about simplifying >> the procedures. One link (but probably not the best one) would be: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/3738 >> >> Implicit in that argument is that contributors release their own >> contribution under a license, and do not vouch for anyone else's >> contribution, and that others can re-use the material under that >> license. This is the normal procedure in the free software community. > > Um, I just looked at that thread, and it was talking more about > whether or not SDO's should be allowed to "fork" an RFC specification > without getting prior permission from the IETF or not, and worries > about "fake" RFC's. That has nothing to do with shoving all of the > liabilities associating with assuring that all contributions following > the IPR responsibilities onto the I-D author/editors. > > Maybe you thought it was implicit in the argument, but it certainly > wasn't obvious to me. So if your goal was to advance that point of > view, it probably wasn't the best strategy as an advocate. I didn't mean to imply that I were aware of the transition issue at the time. Sorry for the confusion. My point was to suggest that we reduce complexity and re-use something that has been proven to work for many years. The current problem appear to stem from a complex solution and too little review. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf