% Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
% >
% > > And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
% > > benefit of an associated WG.
% >
% > Precisely my point to Grenville.
%
% Our discussion had nothing to do with who the question of who
% *generates* I-Ds, but what makes them
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> > And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
> > benefit of an associated WG.
>
> Precisely my point to Grenville.
Our discussion had nothing to do with who the question of who
*generates* I-Ds, but what makes them valid on an ongo
> And what WG? Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
> benefit of an associated WG.
Precisely my point to Grenville.
> Are you trying to tell me that somebody can publish a draft, and then
> "let it expire" just because they don't like the changes that other
> people suggest? Does the author get veto power over improvements
> that a working group agrees to?
there are two separate issues here:
it seems to me
% > is repugnant and is plagarism, pure and simple, no matter
% > whether the author gets listed or not. you didn't have permission,
% > it's plagarism, if not theft.
%
% That doesn't make sense to me. (But I admit I'm far from a wizard
% on IETF procedures and rules.)
%
% Are you trying to te
The IETF+Censored mailing list
At times, the IETF list is subject to debates that have little to do
with the purposes for which the IETF list was created. Some people
would appreciate a "quieter" forum for the relevant debat
> PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to.
> that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny
> modicum of control over something. the notion that people
> other than the author can usurp control and publish it anyway
> is repugnant and is plagarism, pure and si
% Bottom line is that access to historical information is useful. The IETF
% should (and I'm glad to hear, will) make this material available. As
% Martha Stewart says, "And this is good".
%
% - peterd
I think that the IETF secretary will be on shaky ground
Greg Minshall wrote:
>
> i think there are two issues.
>
> one is that when I-Ds were created, there was some controversy, mainly
> revolving around the notion that we already had a forum for people putting out
> ideas (known as RFCs), and that the fact that the public concept of RFC was
> diffe
% have a nice day.
%
% -mo
%
% PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to.
% that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny
% modicum of control over something. the notion that people
% other than the author can usurp control and publish it anyway
% is rep
one point you are ignoring when it comes to publishing just
anything as an RFC: once it has that designation "RFC",
THE IDEA IS SANCTIFIED, no matter what disclaimers you
plaster all over it. (Even a biohazard symbol with a
legend reading "DANGER: LIVE EBOLA" wouldn't help. Ooops -
can't do the
11 matches
Mail list logo
