>From: vint cerf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Grenville Armitage
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference
material
> I don't think the issue is "weight" as much as it is the
> rights to intellectual property contained within the I-D
> (and here I mean intellectual property in the most general
> sense of the term so as to include copyrights and also
> other intellectual property rights).
I know, but I'm not completely comfortable with that
argument. As it's been pointed out, there are years-old
copies of expired IDs floating around even still, and
while there may be authors who are out there hunting
them down and insisting on having them obliterated, I
haven't seen that happen.
If one were to get anal about it, legally intellectual
property claims have to be actively protected in order
to remain valid. That clearly doesn't justify making
off with somebody else's stuff when he/she isn't looking,
but for me the failure to slap around partys who are
hanging on to old drafts (and making them available
through the web) does raise some questions about what the
particular objections are. It seems to center
specifically on the IETF making expired drafts available.
Melinda
