Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> writes:

> And can the review, or the IESG in response to a review, do
> something unusual, such as moving an existing, published,
> standards-track RFC to some other category (not necessarily only
> Historic) while a replacement RFC is being developed, moved
> toward consensus, and published?   It might be much easier (and
> lots quicker) for the community to reach the conclusion "given
> those encumbrances, this document is not suitable for the
> standards track" than to develop a replacement RFC.   If the
> conclusion is that one --or the presumably more extreme "this
> never would have been standardized and might not even have been
> published, had the encumbrance been known"-- do we really want
> to leave the document on the standards track until a replacement
> makes it way through the works?   

That is a good question.  It may be that the technical problem a
patented standards track document solves is no longer relevant enough
for people to work on a replacement.  Also, a technology that
supersedes a patented approach may not be sufficiently similar to say
that the newer one fully replaces the old one.

/Simon

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