Re: Concerns about draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05 becoming a Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



SM:

As I said in my original posting, I am most concerned about my 3rd and 4th comments.  I'll respond to them.

>> 3) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that the IETF is working toward a global Internet.  That is lost in the revised text, and I consider this a major problem with the new text.
> 
> There was an IESG Comment where it was suggested to align the text with that RFC 3935.  I made the change in response to that comment.  I posted a message to the IETF mailing list about the change (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84990.html ).  I took the comment posted by Dave Crocker into consideration (re. consensus) in trying to figure out the text change to suggest.
> 
> There is already text in the draft which mentions that:
> 
>  "IETF participants devise solutions for the Internet that meet the
>   needs of diverse technical and operational environments."
> 
> How is the IETF working towards a global Internet?  I would say that it is by devising solutions which meet the needs of diverse environments; it would be difficult to meet those needs if the IETF is not open to competent input from any source.

The IETF develops open standards for one global Internet, providing maximum interoperability and scalability, and avoiding specialized protocols in different places.

>> 4) As part of the third guideline, RFC 3184 says that IETF participants follow the IPR rules in BCP 9.  That is lost in the revised text.  Perhaps it belongs in a separate guideline, but it should be recovered.
> 
> According to the "Note Well" ( http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html ) the IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79.  In my opinion it is better to keep the guidelines of conduct separate from legal rules.  Jari Arkko mentioned that he was okay with that (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00279.html ).  An IETF participant will have to read BCP 79 anyway.

BCP 79 is the proper reference.

Following the IPR rules is an obligation for all IETF participants.  It was in RFC 3184, and I think we need to keep in this document.

Russ






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]