On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > We have no way to > know what a company's true intentions are or to know whether they > will stick to those intentions, whatever some employees might say.
Hi Brian, Respectfully, every company is capable of communicating its official intentions and designating employees authorized to do so. Whether they're likely to renege later is, I agree, an issue we can't reasonably consider. > So I don't think these hypotheticals about possible futures affect > the decision to be taken now, which is, for once, genuinely about > rough consensus and running code. Creating a derivative work of a vendor's product while keeping the vendor's product name without the vendor's express consent? That's solely and genuinely about rough consensus and running code? Seriously? Gain the vendor's formal consent to take over the standard. Derive a new work from the vendor's standard under a different, readily distinguished name. Produce an informational RFC documenting the vendor's standard without change. Depending on your goals, you have at least three satisfactory paths forward. Why insist on an objectionable path instead? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
