[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob at harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:30:51 +0200
Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20070409232745.B92DA2D2D51@newdev.harvard.edu>
List-help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: IBM
References: <20070409232745.B92DA2D2D51@newdev.harvard.edu>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)

On 2007-04-10 01:27, Scott O. Bradner wrote:

Joel expressed my opinion before I got around to it


Ditto. I think any procedure that amounted to the IETF
making, or appearing to make, a judgment of bad faith
would expose the IETF to a world of hurt.

Rescinding an approval and restarting a Last Call when
a late disclosure shows up against a draft seems to me to be
obviously correct, and I doubt if it even needs documenting.

    Brian

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
  - From: todd glassey
- Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
  - From: John C Klensin

References:
- Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
  - From: Scott O. Bradner

Prev by Date: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
Next by Date: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
Previous by thread: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
Next by thread: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread