[rfc-i] summary of Removing postal information from RFCs
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Jul 11 20:18:39 PDT 2021
On 12-Jul-21 14:33, John R Levine wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> Why do people want to do standards in the IETF rather just editing a spec in
>> Google Docs or GitHub? One primary value that IETF adds is some kind of
>> legal action due to copyright or patent claimed infringement, or anti-trust.
>> It's the reason why there is a NOTE WELL.
> FWIW, I have been a trustee of the IETF Trust for the past four years and
> the identities of IETF contributors have never been an issue. That's not
> a very compelling argument.
IANAL, but surely what counts in prior art claims is certification that
a document *was* published , not which particular Jane Doe wrote it.
Also, do we actually have an issue here? Supplying a full address is
already optional, judging by a number of recent RFCs.
> In the RFC publication process, the only identity we verify is your e-mail
> adddress, since you can't approve an RFC if you don't respond to e-mail.
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest