[rfc-i] Big Picture and RFC format
sm at resistor.net
Thu Jul 12 09:33:33 PDT 2012
I did not elaborate on the question as it may be off-topic. The
usual legal disclaimer apply to the comments below.
At 05:30 12-07-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>As far as answering a subpoena goes, what is relevant is whether the
>IETF has the documents requested and whether they can attest to the
That's the view I had. I am not disagreeing with you. Some of the
information requested goes beyond a request to determine the
authenticity of a RFC.
>Since they are stored on IETF servers and digitally signed by the
>IETF, the IETF is the respondent.
The scope of what is an IETF server was broader than I expected.
>Now oddly enough, the IETF does not exist as a separate legal entity
The views in internal discussions are very different from the view
seen from the outside.
More information about the rfc-interest