Harald - this code thing and identifying it are pretty
simple - 'CODE is
anything that represents an Algorithm or Formulae or any
identifiable
sub-component thereof" - which makes the constraints
of what is and isn't
code really easy to define.
CODE includes, but is not limited to:
------------------------------------
Any Algorithm (or Formulae) or components thereof,
represented in ANY form,
including written descriptions of the work-flow or process
steps.
Particularly:
a) anything written in any of the formally
standardized
"PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES" including any and all
High-Level Programming
Languages - C, Fortran, Pascal, Lisp, Java,
Cobol/Snobol/Fastbol/RPG/RPGII,
or Native Assembler's and the like;
This of course also includes any data objectes from the
above whether in
Machine Code/Binary, Source, or Intermediary-PCode; Other
programming
languages covered in this description include BASIC and the
other
interpreted languages like FORTH for instance
b) Configuration Files content for any and
all components
which would qualify under a) as a program or
program-fragment (here is where
your MIB's and other Configuration Tables get covered...)
c) Any recognized Pseudo-coding model or
standard including
the any and all frameworks defined as a part of another
process. ABNF and
the other flowcharting process including but not limited to:
ci) State Diagrams, Mind Mapping Diagrams, Cause and
Effect Diagrams,
SDL, TQM Diagrams
cii) And simple Workflow Diagrams - whether described
in words or
drawn in any form.
d) Any matehematical formulae represented in
formal notation
of any variety would also fit under this descrioption
Likewise, the same is true for Cross-Functional diagramming,
and any other
form of representing an algorithm or formula/formulae in any
form. The key
issue is "the representation of an algorithm in any
form, or a defined
component of said algorithms.
The question is whether CODE by its very nature requires
separate releases
from the others submitted, and I of course think it does.
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald alvestrand.no>
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:43 PM
Subject: #1175 Code vs text - second attempt at resolution
> In our list of open issues, we have this issue:
>
> > If there are different rights granted to
participants for working with
> > code than with non-code, it
> > has to be possible for users to tell which is
which. Suggestions
include:
> > - Defining it by type (C code, ABNF, MIBs...)
> > - Defining it by marker
(<code>/</code>)
> > - Defining it by separate submission (file
alongside draft)
> > If there are no such differences, the point is
moot.
>
> The discussion from my previous attempt at a resolution
had 4
> participants, which is a bit too few for comfort.
Mainly, it seems to
> have indicated that the resolution should say less -
and clearly
> illustrates that defining "pseudocode" is
even harder than defining
"code".
>
> Second attempt:
>
------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> If a distinction needs to be drawn between code and
non-code in IETF
> documents, the community desires that:
>
> - Specifications in formal languages, including C code,
ABNF, MIBs,
> ASN.1 and so on, are clearly "code".
> - Tables such as the character lists in IDNA are to be
regarded as
> "code" too.
> - Prose, including "pseudocode" that does
not claim any level of
> formality, is not "code" for the purposes
of this resolution. This
> resolution does not say anything about the IETF's
desires regarding
> "pseudocode", one way or another.
> - The IETF Trust should maintain specific guidance on
what will be
> regarded as "code", including guidance on
how to mark "code" in
> documents where doubt could exist; this guidance is
expected to change
> more often than the IETF IPR rules (as enshrined in
BCPs), if needed.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> I think this communicates a desire of the community
that it will be
> clear how to apply for the 95% case, which should be
good enough to put
> text into our draft.
>
> Comments?
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|