Smells like a solution looking for a problem. I could see an informational document explaining what change control means, but do we really have a series of issues that needs solving? > On Sep 10, 2017, at 10:23 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I wonder how far people think hand-off agreement should be > pushed. For example, there have been several cases of a > protocol being sorted out in what appeared to have been an ad > hoc organization or other group and then brought to the IETF as > an already finished and already deployed product with > willingness to transfer formal change control to the IETF but > significant, if informal, resistance to changes. Do you think > we need formal handoff agreements for those cases? I think > that, in general, we haven't gotten them and that those cases > outnumber the ones where we've had formal agreements and, in > some cases, baseline or prior work informational RFCs. > > john > > > --On Thursday, September 7, 2017 07:57 -0700 Dave Crocker > <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 9/7/2017 7:53 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >>> Also, when change control is fully given the the IETF, we >>> have seen the original work published as an Informational RFC >>> that includes a statement that any future versions will be >>> published by the IETF. >> >> >> Publishing the pre-IETF work is common, though of course not >> required. >> >> However there appears to be no documented guidance for >> hand-off agreements and no repository for the set of existing >> agreements. This is in contrast, for example, to the IPR >> statements repository. > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP