On 14 April 2014 16:36, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dick Franks wrote:That's all in the fine print.
On 13 April 2014 00:35, <ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>> wrote:
[snip]
It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
An implementation based on I-D reference material is therefore no better than "work in progress".
The blame for this debacle lies squarely with Yahoo, and its inadequate engineering change management.
Indeed, but with blame so firmly attached, list operators need not be too concerned about inconveniencing Yahoo customers by rejecting posts. Those most affected will doubtless vote with their metaphorical feet.
- allowing someone to represent something as an IETF standard carries a risk to IETF's standing, effectiveness, and credibility as the Internet's standards body (ISO tends to get very upset if someone claims to be ISO9000 certified, but isn't; Xerox sends lawyers after competitors who refer to their copiers as "xerox machines")
Are you suggesting that IETF brings an action for trademark infringement?
Against whom?
A more pragmatic, less expensive, and publicly visible _expression_ of IETF displeasure might be to expunge all versions of the offending I-D from IETF document store and refuse to publish any subsequent version until the unwarranted claims made for it are retracted.
To be effective, that needs to be done now, while the iron is still hot; not after the usual 3-month email debate about the diplomatic niceties.