---- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Josefsson" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:30 PM > John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > Assuming that I'm not the only one who sees the recent patterns > > as problematic > > I don't think you are alone with that impression. The process you > outline (posting preliminary versions in draft-* form) sounds great to > me. Mmmmm ... I think that one thing that the ipr working group got absolutey right was the decision not to try and craft legally suitable wording for intellectual property rights, rather delegating that task. This sounds like a suggestion to restart the ipr wg, perhaps in the hope of getting a different outcome:-) I would however agree with the suggestion that a complicated (to me as a lay person) document should be accompanied by a non-legally binding lay explanation, eg as to why it is thought suitable to cut the review period from 28 to 14 days, or why a reference to the BSD licence should be thought adequate. Tom Petch > I suggested it earlier, and the IETF Trust response was at least > not negative to the idea. Hopefully it can be implemented. This would > also solve the problem of recording the history of document drafts, and > making sure documents are readily available via IETF mirrors even if the > main site is down or material is removed from it, which is another > concern today. > > /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf