Subject: RE: Ipr-wg digest, Vol 1 #353 - 2 msgs

From: "Valerie See \(LCA\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:48 -0800

[email-masked] (Scott Bradner) said:

> I think the template (and its web-based implementation) is a good
thing
> but I do not see a need to recharter to make it more formal that it
> already is

For what it's worth, I'd certainly had the impression that we'd
not take this to anything past an informational RFC given the
newness of this approach - since the use of it won't be required,
just an option for people to use, if I understand things correctly,
that still seems like the right approach to me. If we need to recharter
to get to informational from the WG, then I guess I'm for it, though
I'd be happy to submit it individually if that's more effort than
deemed worthwhile. I do think having it be available as an 
informational for the community is a good thing either way, but
am not religious on the mechanism.

> I'm not sure about the last-call doc - if that would take a recharter
to
> say that the WG can work on changing how things are done then I'm
> not a supporter of the idea (far too many worms in the 'change it' can
> and the WG consensus was to not do that) - if its just a suggestion of

> a good thing then I'm not sure that a WG is needed to push it

What Scott said....

-- Val

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg