I agree with the proposed policy, except that I propose
calling it just "Procedure". It isn't policy, it's just
common sense about how to implement policy.
On 2009-08-18 07:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> This is another reason why the current approach of getting IETF
> consensus on an RFC and publishing should be preferred. Compare RFC
> 5377. It is a well defined process, and unless there is consensus that
> the approach is broken I believe we should use the normal process. Can
> we start and agree on a problem statement before finding solutions?
It would be serious overkill to do this for trivial legal verbiage changes,
which is what we've been discussing for the last 9 months. As Russ implied,
a change of actual *IPR policy* for the the IETF would be an IETF matter;
we're talking here about the Trust's implementation of that policy, or
of policies for the non-IETF document streams, via the TLP. Even an I-D
could be overkill for verbiage changes.
Along the same lines, an emergency procedure is entirely appropriate,
and well within the policy created by RFC4748 and 5378.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf