John Levine <johnl at iecc dot com> wrote:
Nonetheless, I can't help but seeing angels dancing on pins here. We're worrying about situations in which someone contributes material to the IETF that ended up in an RFC, then later goes to court and claims to be shocked and injured that someone else used his material in ways that RFCs are routinely used, i.e., someone acts like a complete jerk.
It could happen. Remember that some people who participate in a WG, and contribute one or two bits of information that make their way into the RFC, are unhappy overall with that group's rough consensus. Not all "contributions" are positive or direct; an author might add wording specifically to ward off a rogue interpretation that someone in the WG "contributed." If you think this is improbable, read some of the appeals that the IESG has had to address in the past 3 years or so.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
