 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, is that a Last Call comment on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights and draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming? A bit late, if so.
Brian, "too late" makes sense for stray comments.It doesn't make sense when we discover that a spec doesn't work. There have been quite a few comments and events that make concretely clear that this 'spec' doesn't work, and that the proposed fix introduces significant new problems, even assuming that it 'fixes' the primary problem.
and layering onto it a hack that imposes even more impact, is not a fix.Look, the IPR WG, and all those who reviewed its drafts, including me, missed that fact that there was a transition problem that should have been covered in those drafts. I'm sorry, I made a mistake, as Basil Fawlty once said. We need to fix that mistake.
You keep referring to this as a 'transition' problem as if that minimizes the problem. Even assuming that the label is formally correct, it's clear that there is nothing brief about the transition nor minimal about the impact.
Like most infrastructure changes, "transition" is a strategic, long-term concern. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.