I would agree with Brian, but phrase it differently.
The Trust Legal Provisions document specifies exactly how the trust, and
people acting based on the trust, are doing things.
There are (at least) two kinds of changes that can occur.
1) There can be changes in policy, particularly policy as it affects
IETF documents. Policy changes that affect the IETF have to come from
the IETF, with sufficient clear community support (at least to the level
of rough consensus) for the trust to act on.
2) There can be changes of mechanism. The trust could learn that the
mechanism that it adopted has a flaw. For example, RFC 5377
specifically leaves the marking determination and legal writing to the
trust. Within a defined policy. If the trust determines it needs to
change its mechanism, the whole point of that structure was to not need
a new RFC. But it does require checking with the community to make sure
that there are no surprise (in particular, this space is full of
unanticipated side-effects. More eyes can help with that.)
So the trust does need some procedure by which it checks with the
community that mechanism changes are acceptable.
The published steps look reasonable to me.
Note that it is perfectly reasonable (but I hope and expect very rare)
for someone in the public review cycle to say "hey, you are changing the
policy (not just mechanism) we all told you about." In which case,
assuming other folks agree, the ballgame changes.
Yours,
Joel
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf