This is silly; will you include statements that these docs have not bee reviewed by the IEEE, ACM, IFIP, etc?
The only docs the IETF reviews are the ones it states it reviews. There are too many previous independent submissions that lack a disclaimer of IETF involvement (including those that predate the IETF). It is the IETF that is borrowing the RFC submission process, not the other way around. The IETF has no business including text in an individual submission - EVER. If that's unacceptable, I suggest the IETF create _ITS OWN_ series of documents to do with as it wants. Joe Stewart Bryant wrote: > Bound, Jim wrote: > >> Folks, I sent input to the IAB and Leslie. One thing that is very >> important is for some text to be stated in all such documents the work >> is in no way, shape, or form an IETF tracked effort or standard or >> anything other than individual submission. We do not want marketing >> departments of vendors claiming papers have IETF consensus or other >> absurd statements from this good will gesture on the part of the IETF. >> >> > I completely agree with this point. > > - Stewart > > > _______________________________________________ > INDEPENDENT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
