I know very clearly that I don't understand everything that
goes on around
here (for any interesting defintion of "around
here"), but ...
From: "Simon Josefsson" <jas extundo.com>
> "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.
At least at the steady state (ignoring what may have
happened pre-RFC 3978),
I think Brian was saying, "well, if it's not a
standards-track RFC, and no
working group adopted it, do we care about it?"
Which does make me wonder about AD-sponsored Informationals,
which seem like
they would slide through this crack, but I'll ignore that
and go back to my
day job (and this isn't my day job)...
Thanks,
Spencer
> /Simon
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|