> Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case? I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes nor did I see a statement from the Trust saying that there are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic reasons maybe there were such statements and I missed them what I did see was a bunch of changes without anything that said specifically what problem each change was trying to solve (not a "justification" for the change but a reason that any change is needed at all) we have been changing the IETF's IPR rules far too often (and I'm in no small way responsible for many of the changes) we should get out of that mode and only be making changes where there is a speific need to do so. Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf