Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich - you have twisted two separate comments into one in order to retort
it.

----

In this context there are two statements - outside of the motions.

Comment #1    - Other Standards ORGS are using RFC's as Standards in
violation of the IETF's rules - read 2026 for more details on what can and
cant be referred to by IETF existing rules. The IETF's allowing this to
happen is part and parcel to supporting it actively.

Comment #2    - If an RFC has commercial value, and the WG Chair's stop
I-D's from becoming RFC's then they have done damage and it is likely
restraint of trade.

They are two separate comments and you have mashed them together to come up
with the below response.  What should happen is that the ISOC should send
the ETSI a formal letter saying that it is the IETF's policy to not allow
external organizations to reference RFC's as though they are standards.

This is an important thing since the ISOC's failing to do so puts them into
the middle of being a party to whatever damages are done by the IETF's rules
and process schema's not being upheld.

If I can reference a RFC like a Standard then what pray tell do I need the
ISOC or the IESG for?


Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI


>
> So the PKIX WG chairs are engaging in restraint of trade because someone
> is doing something with IETF docs that the IETF doesn't want them to do?
>
> Hey, maybe ISOC should sue ETSI under DMCA.
> /r$
> --
> Zolera Systems, Securing web services (XML, SOAP, Signatures,
> Encryption)
> http://www.zolera.com
>