I like this.
Nit: There's a missing "to" in the last line.
>An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive under unusual
>circumstances with consensus of the IESG. ...
> If circumstances permit, a removed
> I-D will be replaced with a tombstone file that describes the reason that
> the I-D was removed from the Public I-D Archive.
That seems much
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that
have been received. This revised text shows the linkage to RFC 2026 in a much
more explicit manner, and it preserves the ability of the IESG to remove an
Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court orde
On 9/25/2012 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Dave,
>Independent Stream authors well might not be "part of" the IETF -- always a strange line of
thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but that doesn't
mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF.
Any I-D author MUST be p
SM>There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the
author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can
adopt such an I-D.
Russ>The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used t
Hi Abdussalam,
At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard
track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or
not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
There is no such thing as
Hi SM,
I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track
document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider?
The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.
AB
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Abdussalam,
> At 08:50 25-09
Hi Abdussalam,
At 08:50 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would
prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to
know the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It
is important that individuals g
--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I
> would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but
> also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to
> convince an IETF WG. It is important t
Hi Dave,
>Independent Stream authors well might not be "part of" the IETF -- always
a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have members -- but
that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF.
Any I-D author MUST be part of IETF otherwise what is IETF then, how do we
d
Hi Russ,
I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer
groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the
reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important
that individuals get to make input to new standards not only companies. I
Todd:
The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards track
RFCs.
Russ
On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:36 PM, tglassey wrote:
> On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Dave:
> Russ - can the Independent Submission Stream (ISS) be used to create a fully
> franchised IETF Stan
On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Dave:
Russ - can the Independent Submission Stream (ISS) be used to create a
fully franchised IETF Standard Process???
i.e. could I for instance through the ISS process submit a I-D and a
RFC-Framework Proposal with that? In this case the framework pr
> From: Dave Crocker
> Apparently you consider the IRTF, IAB and RFC Editor all to be outside
> the IETF.
You apparently seem (from this) to think they're not? Wow.
Noel
Dave:
>>> This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its
>>> own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel
>>> express comfort with this language?
> >
>> Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this
>> is the resulting text. This t
Russ,
On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Dave:
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many
comments that have been received. It is clear that the community
wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the
Public I-D Archive without a court order to do
Dave:
>> The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments
>> that have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to
>> be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a
>> court order to do so. That said, the IESG firmly belie
On 9/22/2012 7:33 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Counsel actually wanted us to broaden the language, thinking "abuse" was
too limiting.
Wow. Well, that certainly satisfies the question I asked.
Thanks, I think.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--On Saturday, September 22, 2012 09:33 -0500 Pete Resnick
wrote:
>...
>>> An I-D will only be removed from the Public I-D Archive with
>>> consensus of the IESG. There are two situations when the
>>> IESG will take this action. First, to comply with a duly
>>> authorized court order. Second
Answering two bits I happen know the answers to:
On 9/21/12 7:48 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
--- DRAFT IESG STATEMENT ---
[...]
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy
was the regular
On 9/21/2012 6:41 PM, David Morris wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
at any time,
They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the
regular 6-month timeout.
Can't the author r
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > While entries in the I-D Repository are subject to change or removal
> > at any time,
>
> They are? Is this new? I thought the only established removal policy was the
> regular 6-month timeout.
Can't the author replace the repository version at
On 9/21/2012 1:45 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that
have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able
to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order
to do so. That sai
On 9/21/2012 4:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Joe,
While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top. Specifically...
--On F
Joe,
While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top. Specifically...
--On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch
On 9/21/2012 2:48 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court.
These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top.
It was an observation, not a threat (at all).
No analysis of legal matters is ev
On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by a court.
These kinds of threats seem a bit over the top.
--Paul Hoffman
Overall I like this--enough wiggle-room to deal with situations we cannot
foresee now, but still sufficient guidance for the IESGs to come. One
small issue, inline.
Stephan
On 9.21.2012 13:45 , "IETF Chair" wrote:
>[...]
>
>When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy will be kept
Looks good to me.
Jari
Hi, Russ,
FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues:
1) all the IDs before March 1994
which should not be published at all until
permission is given (opt-in)
2) all the IDs published before boilerplate inclusion was required
the IETF cannot merely as
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many comments that
have been received. It is clear that the community wants the IESG to be able
to remove an Internet-Draft from the Public I-D Archive without a court order
to do so. That said, the IESG firmly believes that the collec
I believe that the IETF has all of the necessary rights to reproduce,
distribute, and display publicly all Internet-Drafts. Here is my analysis:
In RFC 1310, March 1992, the IAB describes Internet-Drafts, but
it does not define the rights that contributors grant. As best I can
determine, the ve
Hi Carsten,
At 06:11 21-09-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Actually, in this case I'd rather have the author resubmit, just to
make sure not only the rest of the WG, but also the author continues
to like the draft...
(But I'm not chair for this WG.)
It's better if the author resubmits the draft.
> (My problem was not that draft expiry makes the process more complicated, but
> that the chairs didn't notice the expiry and I can't blame them.)
Well, the system does send out automatic reminders (entitled "Expiration
Impending: draft-foo") to all authors and copied to the WG chairs.
So no
On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:22, SM wrote:
>> We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at this time
>> had been expired for a year.
>> The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be).
>
> Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file to interne
Hi John,
At 09:49 20-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
post-expiration. I think that, as a community, we ought to
respect those assumptions more than saying, effectively, "we are
going to maintain a public archive no matter what commitments
you thought were made to you because we can and because we
Hi Carsten,
At 10:28 20-09-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
We just had a consensus call in one WG on adopting a draft that at
this time had been expired for a year.
The chairs didn't notice, because the URI was stable (as it should be).
Send a message with a subject line of Resurrect I-D file to
On Sep 20, 2012, at 18:49, John C Klensin wrote:
> I personally don't consider it very likely that someone would
> actually sue or convince some appropriate prosecutor to come
> after us. But, however one assesses the likelihood of that
> happening and of that party winning, I think an attitude
On 9/19/2012 2:38 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch wrote:
I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with "because it's
useful to the community".
Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm
interested in.
Until there is a court decision
--On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 23:38 +0200 Carsten Bormann
wrote:
>...
> Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or
> one can be reasonably expected), the legal angle is simply
> irrelevant.
>
> (Just keeping the thread alive so it doesn't seem that
> everybody agrees wi
On 9/19/2012 3:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <505a2b08.70...@isi.edu> you write:
On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep
In article <505a2b08.70...@isi.edu> you write:
>
>
>On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
>>> public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
>>
>> We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory her
On Sep 19, 2012, at 22:28, Joe Touch wrote:
> I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts with "because it's useful to
> the community".
Interestingly, these kinds of arguments are the only ones I'm interested in.
Until there is a court decision impacting this usefulness (or one can be
rea
On 9/19/2012 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here.
I'm not. I'm simply refuting *any* argument that starts
>Utility can determine whether it's worth the effort/expense to run a
>public archive, but your utility never undermines my rights as an author.
We're very deep into Junior Lawyer territory here.
You might want to review RFC 3978, section 3.3a, in which contributors
make a:
perpetual, irr
Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>>
>> It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we
>> got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned.
>
> Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't
> legitimize their theft.
>
> Utility can
On 9/18/12 11:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we
got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned.
Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't
legitimi
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we
got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned.
Thieves find it very useful to have what they steal. That doesn't
legitimize their theft.
Utility can determine
On 9/14/2012 7:38 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24:12AM -0700, tglassey wrote:
For instance - how do you deal with an ID which was originally
published under one set of IP rights and another later one - or a
derivative work which is published under a separate set of right
On 9/16/2012 6:56 AM, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
Hi Scott, folks,
with due deference to Joe Touch & Bill Manning, whenever I have
created/requested publication of an I-D, it never occurred to me that I was
actually withdrawing the rights I had signed up to after six months (i.e.,
insisting on re
Hi Scott, folks,
with due deference to Joe Touch & Bill Manning, whenever I have
created/requested publication of an I-D, it never occurred to me that I was
actually withdrawing the rights I had signed up to after six months (i.e.,
insisting on removal). That seems a novel reading of the boiler
I don't think that the Note Well note has much to do with what Joe started
talking about
we have had this discussion before
quite a few years ago (pre tools) I suggested moving "expired" IDs to an
"expired IDs" directory
rather than removing them from the IETF public repository as well as posti
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:24:12AM -0700, tglassey wrote:
>
> For instance - how do you deal with an ID which was originally
> published under one set of IP rights and another later one - or a
> derivative work which is published under a separate set of rights -
> which functionally contravenes or
On 9/13/2012 10:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all
IDs.
I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note
wells, etc., and it's not as simple as "it's the IETF's right" to do
anything except - maybe - going forward
On 9/13/2012 9:23 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at
least. I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
Joe
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues relat
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of
the boilerplate they contain.
Can you give a concrete exa
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 23:59 + John Levine
wrote:
> Censorship? Sheesh.
>...
> As I think I've said several times before, if we think the
> IESG would start gratuitously deleting stuff, we have much
> worse problems than any policy statement could solve.
+1
Exactly.
The jump
Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs.
I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note
wells, etc., and it's not as simple as "it's the IETF's right" to do
anything except - maybe - going forward with a new copyright statement
for IDs.
Joe Touch wrote:
>
> There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least.
> I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
In which case the Note Well concludently applies to the I-D contents,
which seems to have first appeared on www.ietf.org around 2001,
http://web.arch
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least.
I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
Joe
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
>> I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
>> IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
>
>Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of
>the boilerplate they contain.
Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem?
On 9/13/2012 11:04 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired d
On 9/13/2012 12:28 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Joe,
So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every
I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs
We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document
author to arbitrary third parties here, but about right
>It shows a tendency of the active IETF discussants to resist doing the
>work of settling on policy for the IETF. That's quite different from
>demonstrating a lack of /need/.
The IETF has been around for 26 years, and has had, I gather, zero
removal requests to date.
If that doesn't demonstrat
> I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by
>legal counsel. Even with a group -- versus individual -- we should not
>create possible charges of censorship up to the personal whims of the
>moment.
Censorship? Sheesh.
The IETF is not the government. We have no obl
>I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of
>a board, but not giving it to an individual.
So give it to the IESG and we can stop arguing about it.
I have to say, the urge to post a few I-D's consisting of snuff porn
is nearly irresistible.
R's,
John
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 15:10 -0700 Dave Crocker
wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the
> public I-D archive.
>>>
>>> This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written
>>> policy guidance. That is,
On 9/13/2012 3:54 PM, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread
considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship
by a public group such as ourselves.
Aren't you going a l
Dave,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread
> considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship
> by a public group such as ourselves.
Aren't you going a little overboard in hyperbole here
David,
On 9/13/2012 3:25 PM, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed
by legal counsel.
I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that
we should NOT hav
Dave,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed
> by legal counsel.
I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that
we should NOT have a written policy.
Deal with this on a ca
On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy
guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair.
Is that really what we (and the Chair) want?
I v
>>> The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
>
> This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy
> guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair.
>
> Is that really what we (and the Chair) want?
I very much agree. I'm happy with the
On 9/13/2012 2:35 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
OLD
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
NEW
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, wi
I like the whole and +1 to it. I can see the pros and cons of make "drafts"
actually go away but given it is impossible to get rid of a draft from the
internet, all we end up with in the current situation are the cons and none of
the pros.
I do have one suggested change
OLD
> An I-D will onl
Joe,
>
> So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every
> I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs
We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document
author to arbitrary third parties here, but about rights that were
given to the IETF ("IETF co
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
And since we've had a public archive of expired drafts for quite
On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
> access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Melinda
I find the archives very useful, especially when you have your own I-D
history and contribution to WG works perhaps. It helps to show
different views, the synergism, the competitive engineering views, the
history, etc behind the final development of WG work.
Whenever I do find a need to refer
> "Joe" == Joe Touch writes:
Joe> On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
Joe> ...
>> Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a
>> good idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire
>> gracefully.
Joe> +1
Joe> Let's not forget there w
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 00:19 -0700 Joe Touch
wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>> On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
>>> that _keep_ imply "guarantee to have available for retrieval
>>>
On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply "guarantee to have available for retrieval
over the network by any interested party, with no requirement
for a special request
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply "guarantee to have available for retrieval
over the network by any interested party, with no requirement
for a special request".
It's interesting how this line of analys
--On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 23:13 -0400 Barry Leiba
wrote:
>...
> There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired
> document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that
> it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and
> the text you cite later goes o
On 9/12/2012 11:01 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
While the 6-month timer (or any earlier I-D update!!) will, in fact,
change how the*IETF* distributes and promotes a particular I-D (version),
there is actually*NO* limitation in what folks downloading I-Ds
with the URLs from the i-d-announce I-D Acti
Joe Touch wrote:
> >
> > There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document
> > will not be available *in the archive*.
>
> There's nothing that says it won't be available by Santa Claus delivery
> either. However, the document states how things will be made available,
> and
Hi, Barry,
On 9/12/2012 8:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I think it means "no longer current for the purposes of work and
discussion."
Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines
(written by the IESG):
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
8. Expiring
>>> I think it means "no longer current for the purposes of work and
>>> discussion."
>
> Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines
> (written by the IESG):
>
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
>
> 8. Expiring
>
>An Internet-Draft will expire exac
On 9/12/2012 5:59 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
This raises the question of what "expires" means.
At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then "expires" is no
longer meaningful and the entirety of that notion needs to be expunged
from the ID process.
You seem to thi
Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> This raises the question of what "expires" means.
> >
> > At the least, if IDs are published publicly forever, then "expires" is no
> > longer meaningful and the entirety of that notion needs to be expunged
> > from the ID process.
>
> You seem to think it means something l
On Sep 11, 2012, at 15:10, John C Klensin wrote:
> rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion,
I'm not privy to the circumstances that caused the original proposal to come up.
Maybe the reason was that the IESG *wants* its hands bound so there is no
further need to waste time on s
> Or we can voluntarily
>turn the trend around, one step at a time, starting with
>rejecting this proposed statement in favor of discretion,
>flexibility, and intelligence (and definitely not a statement/
>policy of even more complexity) and maybe even including "do we
>really have resources for t
--On Monday, September 10, 2012 15:07 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:29AM -0700,
> ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>
>> > No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an
>> > open organization we do not remove information once posted,
>> > except und
On 9/10/2012 8:24 AM, David Borman wrote:
...
The original reason for expiring drafts, along with giving them long,
complicated names that includes the word "draft", was to keep them
from being referenced as if they were standards, based on experience
gathered from the short lived IDEA document
>>> Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
>>>
>>> Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
>>> submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
>>> confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
>>> the draft. My boss wants it taken
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:26:29AM -0700, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> > No, the response is that we refer you to our policy. As an open
> > organization we do not remove information once posted, except under
> > extraordinary circumstances.
>
> Exactly. This sort of thing is wh a policy
Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
the draft. My boss wants it taken down pronto, even thoug
> On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
> >
> > Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
> > submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
> > confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
>
On Sep 8, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 9/8/2012 11:59 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> On 9/8/12 10:51 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> Nothing about an ID is inherently obsolete or out of date after 6 months
>>> except its being publicly available on authorized sites (up until now).
>>
>>
Hi John,
On 9/9/12 8:43 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Let's say I write to the IESG and say this:
>
> Due to a late night editing error, draft-foo-bar-42 which I
> submitted yesterday contains several paragraphs of company
> confidential information which you can easily see are irrelevant to
>
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
