Subject: RE: RFC2026 and the terms fair and open

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:27:09 -0400

Two crucial comments:

Section 4.2:

     What this means is that ultimately 
     since todayÆs WGÆs only support the ôconstituencyö of one standard 
     initiative per type,

Assuming "type" is to be read broadly, that's not true.  IP Storage is
a counterexample within one WG (3 very different protocols for carrying
block storage traffic over TCP/IP in one WG), and there are other cases
in which separate WGs have been formed for technologies that compete in the
marketplace (a recent example is WGs for both layer 2 and layer 3 VPNs).

Also, this draft appears to have been developed with MS Word, which
has "helpfully" inserted a number of MS non-ASCII characters - one needs
to turn AutoCorrect off completely when using MS Word for Internet-Drafts.

Section 5.1

     In order to be ôfairö all IETF processes must be available to all 
     participants. This means that any individual can submit any 
     protocol specification, BCP, or other informational disclosure to 
     the IETFÆs publications and they, to be fair to all, must likewise 
     publish the submittal, without exception. 

Provided that "publish the submittal" means as an Internet-Draft, this
is ok, BUT ... any obligation to publish everything submitted as an RFC
of some form leads to "garbage in, garbage out", and is a *very* bad idea.

I'm also unclear on the value of publishing this draft as an RFC; the
primary point of the draft appears to be a critique of the appeals
processes and their structure, which is not germane to the IPR WG.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:29:02 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: RFC2026 and the terms fair and open

> block storage traffic over TCP/IP in one WG),

becuase those WG Chair and AD's allowed this, but it is not the rule, its
the exception.

> and there are other cases

David there is no consistency the AD's and WG Chairs may bring in whatever
they want and many have used this to shut down various initiatives. The
issue here is this fair or even reasonable? and I think not.

> to turn AutoCorrect off completely when using MS Word for Internet-Drafts.

It was turned off I thought.