On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > > I think that we need different handoff agreements for work that comes > to the IETF earlier (change welcome) and resistance to change. Having been through this process several times, a few as an author/contributor, and one as an AD, it is very helpful to have the guidelines that are in place already and a little flexibility. Once legal from the contributing organization gets involved, they may have their own requirements. We've accepted documents that have and have not transferred change control (as has been stated already) and being able to work through the options has led to successful contributions. Russ already named the PKCS documents. OVAL from DHS was another somewhat recent one that transferred change control. This document does need revision and has been picked up by the SACM working group. It's been implemented by about 50 vendors, but at this phase it in't lifecycle, it needs some fixing. Making sure we don't create too many hurdles is important. Best regards, Kathleen > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > -- Best regards, Kathleen