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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:09, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:

> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> The second, changing the text, is not something I or the IETF 
>> community
>> support.
>
> Well, I don't claim to speak for the whole IETF community, but this is 
> certainly something I support.
>
> No one is claiming that someone is going to edit the RFC and claim to 
> have a new, better RFC (without going through the RFC update/errata 
> process), and the grant in question specifically disclaims anyone's 
> right to do that.
>
> But, particularly for a document like this, which is defining a codec 
> mapping, I would hope that people would be free to borrow this text 
> for future mappings: either of Opus into another container or another 
> codec into Ogg, or even something totally unrelated to either if it 
> applies.

The IETF made an exception to the TLP policies for RFC 6716 not because 
it was a codec definition per se, but because the normative definition 
was in the code components. The BSD licensing for code components 
already allowed derivative works for the code components themselves, but 
there was a perceived need to also be able to modify text to document 
any modification of "normative" code components.

That reasoning does not apply to this draft, since it does not have 
normative code components. Can you elaborate on whether it is different 
from other IETF standards track documents in some other way that might 
justify such an exception?

Thanks!

Ben.