Subject: When to "Send Draft" ?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:05:47 -0500

Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 15:02, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>> (2) I believe that people who want or need to change IETF protocols
>> should tell the IETF about the changes (at the very least, we should
>> know, and we may be able to improve on the changes). 
> 
> indeed.  another way of phrasing it would be:
> 
>  1) when modified derivative specs are created/redistributed, the
> relevant  IETF WG (or its descendant) must get a copy.

[ ... 2) snipped, as it's covered in a separate message I sent in a
	separate message about license mixing ...]

> (1) helps other implementors become aware of what liberties are being
> taken with the protocol.

I'm concerned about being careful about what we ask for.  We
definitely should know about "major" changes, but if we require
that every change be sent, the result could be that a project
working on solving a hard protocol problem may generate 50
Internet-Drafts covering everything they tried, of which 45
didn't work because the "running code" blew up on them.

While I'm not sure what the alternative is, I wonder if this
is what we really want.  I have no good idea about how to
define "major" change in a clear and binding fashion.

I know that Sam has already pointed out that a "Send Draft"
requirement on source-code would be GPL-incompatible.  I suggest
that we figure out what we want first (goal), and then deal with
what the GPL will allow us to get.

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