Re: [Internet-Drafts@ietf.org: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt]
Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
> The fact that he's even presenting this tired old argument means that
> either nobody is competently presenting the arguments for freeing of
> standards documents, or the arguments aren't being heard ...
Thank you for writing a rebuttal, Glenn. I agree with your
points, but I'm unable to write my own full reply because I
must now go run my blood through a heat exchanger to stop it
boiling. This laughable IETF draft not only refuses to grant
any permission to modify but misrepresents most of the arguments
for and against that grant!
For example, it claims that some "open source community" wants
unrestricted permission to modify, but doesn't give a reference
for the claims. A quick look at the mail archive referenced
elsewhere finds people claiming the exact opposite. EONCRACK?
I thank Scott Bradner for providing such an excellent example why
IETF should not be the only way to develop RFC-based standards and
why we should have *no faith* in claims they represent people like
us in the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance, to
which they were appointed by distortion and slight of hand.