RFC 2026 was in force in 1997 - see section 10 Scott
> On Feb 13, 2016, at 7:39 AM, t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Drake" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 2:52 AM >> >> On 2/12/2016 10:46 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> Hi Stefan, >>> >>> Unless it is absolutely determined that the current work can't > doesn't >>> meet criteria for an IETF standard, I would be opposed to such an >>> exercise. For one thing, we all have other things to do. For > another, >>> and as or more important, we would be denying the reality of the >>> situation. I would rather understand now what sort of changes are >>> being proposed in order for the current work to come up to snuff. >>> >>> Eliot >>> >> Is there anything in this that is incorrect or incomplete? If not, > then >> can it be resubmitted for informational status to define the protocol > as >> it currently exists? >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grant-tacacs-02 > > No! Our procedures have moved on a lot since then and the I-D would need > substantial editing. This is problematic. Nowadays - Note Well - > anything you or I or anyone else says or writes can be used in an I-D > without any breach of copyright. This I-D is 1997 - before my time - > and I was looking yesterday to try and find out what rules the IETF was > operating under then and could not find them. So, who owns the > copyright in the text? Who has permission to edit and publish it? I do > not know (and have seen this issue take a while to resolve in other > circumstances). > > And then there is the question of IPR; reading RFC1492, which I think > would be a Normative Reference in modern parlance, I would expect a > manufacturer to be taking an interest in this and submitting an IPR > claim. > > These are surmountable difficulties. The TLS WG decided that it wanted > a specification of SSLv3 some 15 years after the event and we now have > RFC6101 but it takes time and effort. > > Tom Petch > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
