Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10.txt> (Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

On 01/28/2016 04:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> So either the open source communities needs to be able to change the
> text, or it does not need to be able to change the text, or it has
> created rules for itself where it needs to be permitted to change the
> text even though it does not actually want to change.
> 
> The first, not changing the text, is already covered.
> The second, changing the text, is not something I or the IETF community
> support.

It depends on your definition of "changing the text". There's a lot of
pretty reasonable changes you can make to get the RFC text to better fit
within a new document without changing the meaning. Any of these sure
beats "paraphrasing a section of the RFC" from a compatibility point of
view.

> The third would seem to be a different problem, and asking the IEtF to
> change its rules for that seems a VERY strange answer.

There's certainly a bit of that as well. But keep in mind there's no
"chair of the open source community" who can change all the rules.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 1/28/16 3:59 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> On 01/28/2016 03:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>>> I think that this is a very bad idea.  The point of doing the work
>>>> to create an RFC is to reach agreements on what the words should
>>>> be. Saying after that "oh, but anyone else can change these words
>>>> any way they want" just does not work for me.
> 
> The main issue here is not that people would like to change what the
> RFC says. It's quite the opposite in fact. People would like to be
> able to reuse parts the RFC text in other contexts (e.g. documentation
> for a piece of software that relies on several RFCs). Without
> additional rights, they would have to paraphrase the content of RFCs,
> which would actually lead to more compatibility problems. Also, the
> proposed text already includes the condition "provided that no such
> derivative work shall be presented, displayed, or published in a
> manner that states or implies that it is part of this RFC or any other
> IETF Document". Given that, I'm not sure what the problem is.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>     Jean-Marc
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec