#1167 Excerpt labelling

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencermcsr-labs.org> writes:

>>> I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible
with a document that
>>> invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?
>>>
>>>    If the Contributor desires to eliminate the
IETF's right to make
>>>    modifications and derivative works of an
IETF Contribution (other
>>>    than translations), one of the two of the
following notices may be
>>>    included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft and
>>>    included in a published RFC:
>>> ...
>>>    b. "This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may
>>>       not be created."
>>
>> Ah, but then it isn't what I think of as an IETF
RFC. So I suspect that
>> the IETF doesn't care. The RFC Editor may care,
but that is a separate
>> issue.
>
> I'm looking a couple of paragraphs further down:
>
>   These notices may not be used with any
standards-track document or
>   with most working group documents, except as
discussed in Section 7.3
>   below, since the IETF must retain change control over
its documents
>   and the ability to augment, clarify and enhance the
original IETF
>   Contribution in accordance with the IETF Standards
Process.
>
> I'm assuming that the relevant part of 7.3 is
>
>   The right to produce derivative works is required for
all IETF
>   standards track documents and for most IETF
non-standards track
>   documents.  There are two exceptions to this
requirement:  documents
>   describing proprietary technologies and documents
that are
>   republications of the work of other standards
organizations.
>
> So it looks like any standards-track RFC, or any
informational RFC
> that isn't (1) a proprietary technology or (2)
published by another
> SDO, that contains this limitation would be an error. I
wish I had
> time to check for this, of course, but believe that I
agree with Brian
> here.

When I read those two paragraphs, it doesn't seem like
Informational
RFCs (a non-standards track maturity level) are prevented
from
carrying those notices, even if it isn't (1) or (2).

The first paragraph says that standards-track/WG document
cannot carry
the notices, except for some cases explained in 7.3.  So the
first
paragraph doesn't say anything about informational
documents.

/Simon

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