Re: BCP97bis

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Sun, 17 October 2021 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1F33A0CC7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 04:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t_mrjupRXrVE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 04:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (173-166-5-71-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4619F3A0CC6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 04:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC95EBD5DF9; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:25:53 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6702b78c-037f-f5fd-78a6-901a999dab54@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:25:53 -0400
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Joel M Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7E25FC36-0757-45EA-AB12-76F6818C797C@sobco.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbwvs2Cp_urgJ=hzc6yEMGDaz3C0xf6RQXRrB89wAx=Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwavK5dYdmYPVxdMT5rA=jBZv1cEyAsVBEWOD7p9MoZR1g@mail.gmail.com> <C657F78F-FF99-4898-8A08-844B32589DDE@vigilsec.com> <CAL0qLwbLqyWSqFGL2x-FpXXD19QG9-eZkrnTVm_fxt3tUfZSgg@mail.gmail.com> <C92D456E-63ED-453B-8F33-3AAECA40D1DA@vigilsec.com> <27721119-D39D-427D-8EEE-C5027DA15B06@akamai.com> <007c01d7c2dc$9090c780$b1b25680$@acm.org> <5385fd6f-b7a7-3baa-1374-f4d8d87216fd@joelhalpern.com> <6454.1634428177@localhost> <6702b78c-037f-f5fd-78a6-901a999dab54@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/J3qobypNhnsqx1Q-c2QcXQZbcfc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 11:26:01 -0000

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 <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17-Oct-21 12:49, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> 
>> Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> 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
>