On 2010-04-10 06:12, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> The Note Well says in part
>
>>
>>
>> ...which are addressed to:
>>
>> • The IETF plenary session
>> • The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
>> • Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working
>> group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF
>> auspices
>> • Any IETF working group or portion thereof
>> • The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB
>> • The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
>>
>>
>>
>
> Does this need to be expanded to include the other stream editors ? Or
> do the other streams need their own Note Well ?
I'd say NO and no.
NO to the first because the Note Well is highly specific to IETF
contributors, which is a precisely defined category, and we should
not confuse this with the other streams.
No to the second because the Note Well is, strictly speaking, legally
redundant. The BCPs themselves are a necessary and sufficient
statement of the IETF rules. For the other streams, surely it's
enough that the rules are published. Let's not accrete any more legal
crud than we have to.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
