Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:02:23 AM -0700 todd glassey 
<tglassey at earthlink.net> wrote:

> By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or
> Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???

Heh.  "Network" isn't an IETF working group; the phrase "Network Working 
Group" at the top of RFC's is a historical nod to the group that started 
the series.

In this particular case, we expect the appeals process to be binding upon 
ISOC and it's board because it was approved by that board, as all IETF 
process documents must be.


Before you start spouting audit-speak at us and quoting practices which 
were not intended for an organization like the IETF and are not relevant to 
it, you could at least do your homework.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+ at cmu.edu>
  Sr. Research Systems Programmer
  School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
  Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf