Keith Moore wrote:
it's really very simple: people posted I-Ds with the assurance that they
would be retired after six months. it's not reasonable for IETF to
violate that assurance without permission.
Errr, people post IDs to publicly accessible mailing lists which are
being
Peter,
...there were pretty categoric statements made during the last iteration of
this thread that
a Drafts archive *was* going up soon. Has this idea been shelved,
canceled, delayed or absorbed by the event horizon surrounding the
infinitely dense Black Hole that is the intellectual property
Peter Deutsch wrote:
g'day,
John C Klensin wrote:
. . .
Please, folks, I am _not_ trying to restart the discussion of
archival I-Ds. Personally, I remain opposed to the idea, and
I believe that they should be treated as drafts and discarded.
If they result in an RFC, then the RFC
Thanks a 1x10^6. I missed that!
- peterd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter,
...there were pretty categoric statements made during the last iteration of
this thread that
a Drafts archive *was* going up soon. Has this idea been shelved,
canceled, delayed or
Joe Touch wrote:
. . .
Yes. The history here is the reason why the drafts are ephemeral and not
archived - to encourage the exchange of incomplete ideas. The success of
this history is what is being compromised.
Archiving them creates an environment where drafts and updates will be
it's really very simple: people posted I-Ds with the assurance that they
would be retired after six months. it's not reasonable for IETF to
violate that assurance without permission.
so if IETF wants to make old drafts publically available (and I agree
this could be a useful thing), it really
Keith Moore wrote:
it's really very simple: people posted I-Ds with the assurance that they
would be retired after six months. it's not reasonable for IETF to
violate that assurance without permission.
Errr, people post IDs to publicly accessible mailing lists which are
being archived
Keith Moore wrote:
if respecting the author's wishes isn't reasonable or practical,
it might be that you live in a pretty warped world.
Or a courtroom (or will).
These aren't just wishes; there are valid copyright issues.
Joe
These aren't just wishes; there are valid copyright issues.
perhaps. but even if the lawyers said it was okay for IETF
to make those archives public, I'd still argue that it's
acting in bad faith for IETF to do so without a reasonable
effort to get permission.
i.e. laws and ethics aren't the
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
These aren't just wishes; there are valid copyright issues.
perhaps. but even if the lawyers said it was okay for IETF
to make those archives public, I'd still argue that it's
acting in bad faith for IETF to do so without a reasonable
effort to get
--On Monday, 01 July, 2002 13:55 -0700 Peter Deutsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so if IETF wants to make old drafts publically available (and
I agree this could be a useful thing), it really should get
permission from the authors. or at least notify them and give
authors the chance to say
Joe,
--On Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:32 PM -0700 Joe Touch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've recently had another close encounter with the patent
system and notions of prior art. It occurs to me that we
could make a slight modification to the Internet Draft
structure and encourage including an
g'day,
John C Klensin wrote:
. . .
Please, folks, I am _not_ trying to restart the discussion of
archival I-Ds. Personally, I remain opposed to the idea, and
I believe that they should be treated as drafts and discarded.
If they result in an RFC, then the RFC should stand on its own.
Nor
John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
I've recently had another close encounter with the patent system
and notions of prior art. It occurs to me that we could make a
slight modification to the Internet Draft structure and encourage
including an additional bit of information that would be quite
Lloyd Wood wrote:
Given that a large number of drafts, including even
draft-bradner-submission-rights-00.txt
currently end in a boilerplate saying copyright (year)
or an out-of-date year because the boilerplate has been cut and pasted
from a previous draft, it would be impossible to rely
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:30:21 EDT, John C Klensin said:
2000.04.01 or first submitted 1999.12.25. Or the author
could choose to list each version number, the date, and perhaps a
brief summary of major ideas introduced.
You'd have to do this, in case the prior art was something introduced
--On Thursday, 27 June, 2002 11:12 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:30:21 EDT, John C Klensin said:
2000.04.01 or first submitted 1999.12.25. Or the author
could choose to list each version number, the date, and
perhaps a brief summary of major ideas introduced.
17 matches
Mail list logo
