> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:53, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:34:41AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 11:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's why the definition what 'published' means in the IETF is in the >>>>>>> guidelines document. On the other hand, since this is an IETF >>>>>>> document, I also do not find it problematic to define IETF rules >>>>>>> here. Others should be able to skip over this. There are really more >>>>>>> important problems to solve. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not clear at all from sec. 10 that data modellers outside IETF may >>>>>> skip over this. I am not even sure that everybody in this WG agrees with >>>>>> your interpretation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are wrong. >>>>> >>>>> - Section 10 in RFC 6020 applies to all published modules. >>>> >>>> The bullets specifying the rules are introduced with this sentence: >>>> >>>> 'A definition may be revised in any of the following ways:' >>>> >>>> so IMO it is intended to apply to *all* modules. Are you saying that it >>>> actually means >>>> >>>> 'A definition in a module published by IETF may be revised in any of the >>>> following ways:'? >>>> >>> >>> A definition in a published module may be revised [...] >>> >>>>> - The definition of what turns a module into a published module is >>>>> specific to the different organizations publishing modules. >>>> >>>> So it means that such an organization may also decide to ignore the rules >>>> entirely or replace them with its own rules. >>>> >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> If the WG can agree on this and make the corresponding changes in sec. 11 >>>> of 6020bis, then I have no more objections. >>> >>> The rules are there to ensure interoperability. Interoperability is an >>> issue for published modules (but not for modules under development). >> >> This doesn't make much sense unless you give an objective definition of >> "published". For example, are proprietary modules (developed by vendors) >> ever published? >> > > This has to be late binding - an organization publishing modules will > have to define what 'publishing' means for them and they will have to > decide whether they publish anything at all.
Right. Should there ever be any malcontents who are not happy with those rules, here is a recipe: they can provide the modules to their customers instead of publishing them. And W3C could just recommend their modules. Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
