Henk Uijterwaal <henk@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Marshall Eubanks <tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP >> >> Is this a solution looking for a problem? RFC 5377 is an example of >> where the IETF asks the Trust do something. What is wrong with using >> the same approach in the future? The approach would be that someone >> writes an I-D, there is IETF-wide last call on it, and it is either >> approved or not. If it is approved, the Trust needs to act. > > Correct and this document specifies how the trust will react: it takes > the guidance (for example, RFC 5377), modifies the text, gets legal > advice and proposes an implementation to the community. The community > reviews the changes and checks that what is implemented, is what is > requested. I wish that is how it would work. The most recent change of the TLP was not following that process -- instead the Trust proposed the change and implemented it after some delay -- and, for example, it resulted in a change to how BSD licensed portions extracted from IETF documents that is not consistent with common practice. >>> 2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement. >>> a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID from >>> a WG >>> chartered to discuss these items. >>> b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community. >>> c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue. >> >> For 2c, whom is the note to? To only the trust or to the community? If >> the former, will be trust communicate the request to the community? > > 2c are cases where the Trust manages something for another stream, so in > first order, I'd say that the note is for the trust and that other stream. > I don't see a problem sending it else where though. 2c does not seem restricted for non-IETF streams from the writing above. I think it is important that the IETF is notified for issues relating to the IETF stream. >>> 4. Trust (with legal counsel) reviews the issue and comes up with a >>> response: >>> a. No, we don't think changing this is a good idea, because ... >>> >>> b. Yes, we suggest to modify the text as follows ... (perhaps with >>> some background material why this is the answer). >> >> I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what is and >> what is not a problem into the Trust's hands. > > No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not to change > the text. If a suggestion isn't considered a good idea by the Trust, the > reasons for not changing it can be discussed in this step. Step 4 puts a veto for changes into the Trust's hands. Members on the Trust can be removed by the IETF, but I don't believe that is a good way to make the Trust to do something the IETF requests. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf