i have scanned and support adoption of the draft as a wg item. >> My understanding is that this is perfectly compatible with the IETF >> standards process, as long as this restriction is removed before posting >> as draft-ietf (for instance, I guess that's why it's allowed in the >> first place). (this restriction will be removed in the upcoming >> draft-ietf version, accordingly) > It is allowed and I don't want to start a big IPR thread here, but I > think the intent for this clause (no derivative works) is for work > that someone wants to present to a w.g. that was not intended to be an > IETF work item. My opinion is that it's not appropriate for documents > intended to become an IETF work item as yours was.
i beg to differ. i have used the restrictive clause for years exactly as fernando states. if the wg does not adopt, then i may take *my* marbles and go home. randy -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
