#1166 Quotations from RFCs and I-Ds - suggested resolution

Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we resolve
this:

The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF should
allow anyone 
to publish excerpts of any length from all parts of
published RFCs and 
Internet-drafts, with attribution as appropriate for the
medium it is 
used in.

Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx says",
"Excerpt from RFC xxxx by 
Joe Bloggs" et cetera.

Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch the
issue of 
modified versions at all.

Comments?

                     Harald


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we
resolve this:
>
> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF
should allow
> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all parts
of published
> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
> medium it is used in.
>
> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>
> Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch
the issue of
> modified versions at all.
>
> Comments?

It seems fine, but lacking in detail.

I wish that we can address typographical and editorial
changes here,
either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow them
explicitly.

Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is any
disagreement over
your simple permission grant above.  However the problem is
in the
interpretation of what it means, so I believe it should not
be
resolved with too brief text, or it will come up again later
on.

This is also a "devil in the detail" that is
causing problems in
practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim quoting
rights give
me the right to make minor changes that may amount to a
copyright
infringement if it is done enough times in a product.

Do you think that typographical/editorial modifications
should be
permitted or not?

Some proposed paths to take:

1)

I'd argue to grant rights to re-format the text, in order
to e.g.:

* remove page breaks

* re-flow the text to fit a particular column width

* add text to fit a particular circumstance.  For example,
it is often
  useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment, which for
longer
  quotes typically require that you prefix each line with
'//'.

and to make editorial changes, in order to e.g.:

* fix typos

* improve ascii art in a real book

* in a small excerpt for e.g. a function API, incorporate
changes from
  the RFC errate.  The reason is that it does not make sense
to say,
  in the man page for foo():

    RFC 4711 says: The iteration count must be 0-256
exclusive.  An
    errata to RFC 4711 says: Change 0-256 to 0-256
inclusive.

  Instead, I think it should be permitted to say:

    RFC 4711 (with errata) says: The iteration count must be
0-256
    inclusive.

  Admittedly, this small example is short enough to not be a
copyright
  infringement, but in the real world the changes may well
be too
  large.

The text to grant these rights could be kept abstract and
does not
have to discuss details.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Modifications that are of typographical or editorial
nature are
permitted.

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

2)

Explicitly disallow this.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Typographical and editorial changes are not
permitted, only verbatim
extracts are allowed."

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

3)

Something completely different.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we
resolve this:
>
> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF
should allow
> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all parts
of published
> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
> medium it is used in.
>
> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>
> Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch
the issue of
> modified versions at all.
>
> Comments?

It seems fine, but lacking in detail.

I wish that we can address typographical and editorial
changes here,
either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow them
explicitly.

Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is any
disagreement over
your simple permission grant above.  However the problem is
in the
interpretation of what it means, so I believe it should not
be
resolved with too brief text, or it will come up again later
on.

This is also a "devil in the detail" that is
causing problems in
practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim quoting
rights give
me the right to make minor changes that may amount to a
copyright
infringement if it is done enough times in a product.

Do you think that typographical/editorial modifications
should be
permitted or not?

Some proposed paths to take:

1)

I'd argue to grant rights to re-format the text, in order
to e.g.:

* remove page breaks

* re-flow the text to fit a particular column width

* add text to fit a particular circumstance.  For example,
it is often
  useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment, which for
longer
  quotes typically require that you prefix each line with
'//'.

and to make editorial changes, in order to e.g.:

* fix typos

* improve ascii art in a real book

* in a small excerpt for e.g. a function API, incorporate
changes from
  the RFC errate.  The reason is that it does not make sense
to say,
  in the man page for foo():

    RFC 4711 says: The iteration count must be 0-256
exclusive.  An
    errata to RFC 4711 says: Change 0-256 to 0-256
inclusive.

  Instead, I think it should be permitted to say:

    RFC 4711 (with errata) says: The iteration count must be
0-256
    inclusive.

  Admittedly, this small example is short enough to not be a
copyright
  infringement, but in the real world the changes may well
be too
  large.

The text to grant these rights could be kept abstract and
does not
have to discuss details.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Modifications that are of typographical or editorial
nature are
permitted.

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

2)

Explicitly disallow this.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Typographical and editorial changes are not
permitted, only verbatim
extracts are allowed."

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

3)

Something completely different.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we
resolve this:
>
> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF
should allow
> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all parts
of published
> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
> medium it is used in.
>
> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>
> Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch
the issue of
> modified versions at all.
>
> Comments?

It seems fine, but lacking in detail.

I wish that we can address typographical and editorial
changes here,
either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow them
explicitly.

Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is any
disagreement over
your simple permission grant above.  However the problem is
in the
interpretation of what it means, so I believe it should not
be
resolved with too brief text, or it will come up again later
on.

This is also a "devil in the detail" that is
causing problems in
practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim quoting
rights give
me the right to make minor changes that may amount to a
copyright
infringement if it is done enough times in a product.

Do you think that typographical/editorial modifications
should be
permitted or not?

Some proposed paths to take:

1)

I'd argue to grant rights to re-format the text, in order
to e.g.:

* remove page breaks

* re-flow the text to fit a particular column width

* add text to fit a particular circumstance.  For example,
it is often
  useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment, which for
longer
  quotes typically require that you prefix each line with
'//'.

and to make editorial changes, in order to e.g.:

* fix typos

* improve ascii art in a real book

* in a small excerpt for e.g. a function API, incorporate
changes from
  the RFC errate.  The reason is that it does not make sense
to say,
  in the man page for foo():

    RFC 4711 says: The iteration count must be 0-256
exclusive.  An
    errata to RFC 4711 says: Change 0-256 to 0-256
inclusive.

  Instead, I think it should be permitted to say:

    RFC 4711 (with errata) says: The iteration count must be
0-256
    inclusive.

  Admittedly, this small example is short enough to not be a
copyright
  infringement, but in the real world the changes may well
be too
  large.

The text to grant these rights could be kept abstract and
does not
have to discuss details.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Modifications that are of typographical or editorial
nature are
permitted.

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

2)

Explicitly disallow this.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Typographical and editorial changes are not
permitted, only verbatim
extracts are allowed."

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

3)

Something completely different.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we
resolve this:
>
> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF
should allow
> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all parts
of published
> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
> medium it is used in.
>
> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>
> Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch
the issue of
> modified versions at all.
>
> Comments?

It seems fine, but lacking in detail.

I wish that we can address typographical and editorial
changes here,
either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow them
explicitly.

Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is any
disagreement over
your simple permission grant above.  However the problem is
in the
interpretation of what it means, so I believe it should not
be
resolved with too brief text, or it will come up again later
on.

This is also a "devil in the detail" that is
causing problems in
practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim quoting
rights give
me the right to make minor changes that may amount to a
copyright
infringement if it is done enough times in a product.

Do you think that typographical/editorial modifications
should be
permitted or not?

Some proposed paths to take:

1)

I'd argue to grant rights to re-format the text, in order
to e.g.:

* remove page breaks

* re-flow the text to fit a particular column width

* add text to fit a particular circumstance.  For example,
it is often
  useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment, which for
longer
  quotes typically require that you prefix each line with
'//'.

and to make editorial changes, in order to e.g.:

* fix typos

* improve ascii art in a real book

* in a small excerpt for e.g. a function API, incorporate
changes from
  the RFC errate.  The reason is that it does not make sense
to say,
  in the man page for foo():

    RFC 4711 says: The iteration count must be 0-256
exclusive.  An
    errata to RFC 4711 says: Change 0-256 to 0-256
inclusive.

  Instead, I think it should be permitted to say:

    RFC 4711 (with errata) says: The iteration count must be
0-256
    inclusive.

  Admittedly, this small example is short enough to not be a
copyright
  infringement, but in the real world the changes may well
be too
  large.

The text to grant these rights could be kept abstract and
does not
have to discuss details.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Modifications that are of typographical or editorial
nature are
permitted.

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

2)

Explicitly disallow this.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Typographical and editorial changes are not
permitted, only verbatim
extracts are allowed."

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

3)

Something completely different.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we
resolve this:
>
> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF
should allow
> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all parts
of published
> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
> medium it is used in.
>
> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>
> Note that this resolution of this issue does not touch
the issue of
> modified versions at all.
>
> Comments?

It seems fine, but lacking in detail.

I wish that we can address typographical and editorial
changes here,
either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow them
explicitly.

Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is any
disagreement over
your simple permission grant above.  However the problem is
in the
interpretation of what it means, so I believe it should not
be
resolved with too brief text, or it will come up again later
on.

This is also a "devil in the detail" that is
causing problems in
practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim quoting
rights give
me the right to make minor changes that may amount to a
copyright
infringement if it is done enough times in a product.

Do you think that typographical/editorial modifications
should be
permitted or not?

Some proposed paths to take:

1)

I'd argue to grant rights to re-format the text, in order
to e.g.:

* remove page breaks

* re-flow the text to fit a particular column width

* add text to fit a particular circumstance.  For example,
it is often
  useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment, which for
longer
  quotes typically require that you prefix each line with
'//'.

and to make editorial changes, in order to e.g.:

* fix typos

* improve ascii art in a real book

* in a small excerpt for e.g. a function API, incorporate
changes from
  the RFC errate.  The reason is that it does not make sense
to say,
  in the man page for foo():

    RFC 4711 says: The iteration count must be 0-256
exclusive.  An
    errata to RFC 4711 says: Change 0-256 to 0-256
inclusive.

  Instead, I think it should be permitted to say:

    RFC 4711 (with errata) says: The iteration count must be
0-256
    inclusive.

  Admittedly, this small example is short enough to not be a
copyright
  infringement, but in the real world the changes may well
be too
  large.

The text to grant these rights could be kept abstract and
does not
have to discuss details.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Modifications that are of typographical or editorial
nature are
permitted.

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

2)

Explicitly disallow this.  One suggestion to start
discussions:

"Typographical and editorial changes are not
permitted, only verbatim
extracts are allowed."

"Examples of typographical changes include removal of
page breaks,
re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width, and
adding '//',
/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a source
code.
Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."

3)

Something completely different.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Simon Josefsson wrote:

>Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we
resolve this:
>>
>>The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the IETF
should allow
>>anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all
parts of published
>>RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
>>medium it is used in.
>>
>>Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
>>by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>>
>>Note that this resolution of this issue does not
touch the issue of
>>modified versions at all.
>>
>>Comments?
>>    
>>
>
>It seems fine, but lacking in detail.
>
>I wish that we can address typographical and editorial
changes here,
>either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow them
explicitly.
>
>Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is any
disagreement over
>your simple permission grant above.  However the problem
is in the
>interpretation of what it means, so I believe it should
not be
>resolved with too brief text, or it will come up again
later on.
>
>This is also a "devil in the detail" that is
causing problems in
>practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim quoting
rights give
>me the right to make minor changes that may amount to a
copyright
>infringement if it is done enough times in a product.
>
>Do you think that typographical/editorial modifications
should be
>permitted or not?
>
I think that is best addressed as a separate issue - #1169
has the title 
"Modified excerpts".

For now, I'd be happy to resolve this issue by saying
"verbatim excerpts 
ARE permitted", and we'll keep the open issue on how
much change we want 
to permit.

I've added your list of subissues to issue #1169 - it's a
good list.

                             Harald


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

At 4:30 PM +0200 4/25/06, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:
>
>> Based on discussion in Dallas, I suggest that we
resolve this:
>>
>> The IPR WG desires that in outgoing rights, the
IETF should allow
>> anyone to publish excerpts of any length from all
parts of published
>> RFCs and Internet-drafts, with attribution as
appropriate for the
>> medium it is used in.
>>
>> Examples of attributions are "RFC xxxx
says", "Excerpt from RFC xxxx
>> by Joe Bloggs" et cetera.
>>
>> Note that this resolution of this issue does not
touch the issue of
>> modified versions at all.
>>
>> Comments?
>
>It seems fine, but lacking in detail.

Hi Simon,
	My basic take is that the issues you raise below are real,
but should be distinguished from this issue.  While I
believe "re-format" is
inherently part of the "excerpts of any length"
(because I can
concatentate excerpts from pages to get rid of line breaks,
etc.),
I think it could be and perhaps should be explicitly
included in the
resolution  to this issue.
	But let's take anything that says "fix",
"improve", or "incorporate"
to a separate issue.  Those aren't nearly as clean, and
before wrestling
with the devil in those details, I really want to say that
we've agreed on
*something*.
			best regards,
				Ted Hardie





>I wish that we can address typographical and editorial
changes here,
>either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow them
explicitly.
>
>Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is any
disagreement over
>your simple permission grant above.  However the problem
is in the
>interpretation of what it means, so I believe it should
not be
>resolved with too brief text, or it will come up again
later on.
>
>This is also a "devil in the detail" that is
causing problems in
>practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim quoting
rights give
>me the right to make minor changes that may amount to a
copyright
>infringement if it is done enough times in a product.
>
>Do you think that typographical/editorial modifications
should be
>permitted or not?
>
>Some proposed paths to take:
>
>1)
>
>I'd argue to grant rights to re-format the text, in
order to e.g.:
>
>* remove page breaks
>
>* re-flow the text to fit a particular column width
>
>* add text to fit a particular circumstance.  For
example, it is often
>  useful to quote an RFC in a C++ source comment, which
for longer
>  quotes typically require that you prefix each line
with '//'.
>
>and to make editorial changes, in order to e.g.:
>
>* fix typos
>
>* improve ascii art in a real book
>
>* in a small excerpt for e.g. a function API,
incorporate changes from
>  the RFC errate.  The reason is that it does not make
sense to say,
>  in the man page for foo():
>
>    RFC 4711 says: The iteration count must be 0-256
exclusive.  An
>    errata to RFC 4711 says: Change 0-256 to 0-256
inclusive.
>
>  Instead, I think it should be permitted to say:
>
>    RFC 4711 (with errata) says: The iteration count
must be 0-256
>    inclusive.
>
>  Admittedly, this small example is short enough to not
be a copyright
>  infringement, but in the real world the changes may
well be too
>  large.
>
>The text to grant these rights could be kept abstract
and does not
>have to discuss details.  One suggestion to start
discussions:
>
>"Modifications that are of typographical or
editorial nature are
>permitted.
>
>"Examples of typographical changes include removal
of page breaks,
>re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width,
and adding '//',
>/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a
source code.
>Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
>art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."
>
>2)
>
>Explicitly disallow this.  One suggestion to start
discussions:
>
>"Typographical and editorial changes are not
permitted, only verbatim
>extracts are allowed."
>
>"Examples of typographical changes include removal
of page breaks,
>re-flowing the text to fit a particular column width,
and adding '//',
>/* or */ markers when the excerpt is included in a
source code.
>Examples of editorial changes include fixing typos,
improving ASCII
>art, and applying updates from the RFC errata."
>
>3)
>
>Something completely different.
>
>Thanks,
>Simon
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipr-wg mailing list
>Ipr-wgietf.org
>https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

> I've added your list of subissues to issue #1169 -
it's a good list.

https:
//rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1169

The #1169 text now wholly mis-represent what I argue for,
because what
you quoted me saying there was something I argued for in
another
context...

In #1169, I would argue for granting rights to excerpts (and
entire
documents) under a license that permit incorporation of the
excerpt in
BSD and GPL licensed material.

Permitting only editorial and typographical changes is
incompatible
with BSD/GPL.

Issue #1169 is one where I have given multiple examples for,
e.g., the
getaddrinfo man page issue, and the GSS-API function
description
issue.  It is one of the more important issues, and I don't
want my
position mis-understood.

The examples I gave for #1166 were things to ponder whether
they are
to be permitted by "verbatim copying" or not.

After re-reading #1169, I think my list doesn't make sense
there, and
it mis-represent what I argue for, so please remove it, or
at least
modify the surrounding text to make it clear that I don't
argue for
those things in that context.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no> writes:

>>I wish that we can address typographical and
editorial changes here,
>>either be permitting them explicitly or to disallow
them explicitly.
>>
>>Like Spencer Dawkin says, I don't think there is
any disagreement over
>>your simple permission grant above.  However the
problem is in the
>>interpretation of what it means, so I believe it
should not be
>>resolved with too brief text, or it will come up
again later on.
>>
>>This is also a "devil in the detail"
that is causing problems in
>>practice, because it is unclear whether verbatim
quoting rights give
>>me the right to make minor changes that may amount
to a copyright
>>infringement if it is done enough times in a
product.
>>
>>Do you think that typographical/editorial
modifications should be
>>permitted or not?
>>
> I think that is best addressed as a separate issue -
#1169 has the
> title "Modified excerpts".

The #1166 issue text is:

  The trust should permit quotations from RFCs and I-Ds,
with
  permissions at least as liberal as US "fair
use", and easy to figure
  out

I believe US "fair use" permit certain
modifications, such as
re-formatting the excerpt to fit a specific context.  See:

htt
p://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

We've had no discussion on whether we want to permit more
than what
was suggested as the minimum level, so it seems premature to
close
this.

> For now, I'd be happy to resolve this issue by saying
"verbatim
> excerpts ARE permitted", and we'll keep the open
issue on how much
> change we want to permit.

I think deciding how much changes we want to permit for
excerpts IS
the #1166 issue.

Sorry for not spotting this angle earlier.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg