Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org>]

On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 21:13 -0500, Scott Bradner wrote:

> (by the way 
> "there is nothing that guarantee that the IETF will be around forever"
> is a very silly argument - if the ietf were to go away who would complain
> if there were a 1000 things that claimed to be SIP? - whoever it was
> it would not be the ietf so anything by the IETF that said 'don't do
> that' would be far from effective)

Why is this a concern? There is currently nothing preventing 1000
different documents from claiming to define any given standard. It would
make more sense to ensure that only one document can claim to be the
IETF standard for a given protocol. Once that's possible, there's no
harm in allowing standards documents to be modified as much as people
desire.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg