John Levine <johnl at iecc dot com> wrote:
Nonetheless, I can't help but seeing angels dancing on pins here. > We're worrying about situations in which someone contributes material > to the IETF that ended up in an RFC, then later goes to court and > claims to be shocked and injured that someone else used his material > in ways that RFCs are routinely used, i.e., someone acts like a > complete jerk.
It could happen. Remember that some people who participate in a WG, and contribute one or two bits of information that make their way into the RFC, are unhappy overall with that group's rough consensus. Not all "contributions" are positive or direct; an author might add wording specifically to ward off a rogue interpretation that someone in the WG "contributed." If you think this is improbable, read some of the appeals that the IESG has had to address in the past 3 years or so. --Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14http://www.ewellic.orghttp://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htmlhttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf