Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it. If
someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of this
one way or the other that would be great. I am pretty sure this was not
widely understood when it was IETF LC and I very confident it was not
understood by the IESG when when they approved it.
Indeed. But more importantly, this sub-thread naturally and inevitably reduces
down to an infinite, entirely unproductive finger-pointing game.
We have a reality that the new IPR rules are fundamentally problematic. Prior
to their imposition, we had a functioning system. Now we don't.
And the only thing that changed was imposition of the new rules. Nothing else
happened.
The proposals are mostly about adding another layer of 'fix' to what was
supposed, itself, to be an incremental fix. The odds that we will get that
additional layer wrong are demonstrably high.
We should, instead, re-invoke the previous rules, until we figure out how to
make the correct changes.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
