Re: BCP97bis

[Scott Bradner <[e-mail]>]

no correction needed - remember that when 2026 was approved most SDOs (e.g., the ITU-T) did not make their
standards available for free so that had to be part of the world the IETF lived in

fwiw - I think that ANSI X3.4-1986 (the standard used as an example in RC 2026)  was not available for free at that point

Scott

> On Oct 16, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 17-Oct-21 12:49, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> 
>> Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Just make a copy might work if we have the legal right to do so. (There are
>>> other complications, but they pale beside this one.  In the case of IEEE
>>> specs that Michael Richardson has been talking about, we do NOT have a right
>>> to make a copy and give it away.)
>> 
>> For anything that has an archive.org copy, we could use that.
>> 
>> IEEE makes ure that archive.org can't archive their stuff.
>> 
> 
> If I have this right (and Scott Bradner will probably correct me if
> I'm wrong), the basic rules in RFC2026 section 7.1.1 recognize the reality
> that some open standards are essential and unavoidable references which
> are not available free of charge to the general public.
> 
> To be clear, the phrase "open standard" in that section doesn't
> mean "free of charge". (Long essay on what it *does* mean elided.)
> 
> (IEEE 802 and numerous CCITT Recommendations were the original
> problem cases, I think, and that was about hard copies, of course.)
> 
> Wherever possible we try to avoid dependency on such references, but
> when you can't, there really isn't any choice.
> 
>  Brian
>