Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> Fri, 11 February 2005 01:38 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16886 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:38:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CzQ5G-0000nE-HK for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:59:02 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CzPiF-0005nf-BK; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:35:15 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CzPe9-0004fY-IP for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:31:01 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16287 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:30:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net ([217.13.230.178] helo=yxa.extundo.com ident=root) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CzPy8-0000e4-Uc for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:51:41 -0500
Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se [217.215.27.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.13.2/8.13.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j1B1UglR020345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:30:43 +0100
From: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
To: sob@harvard.edu
References: <20050211001847.BC1ED212D25@newdev.harvard.edu>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:21:050211:ipr-wg@ietf.org::qc2TOmCB1U5HYe4X:1A8W
X-Hashcash: 1:21:050211:sob@harvard.edu::qc2TOmCB1U5HYe4X:9Xm2
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:30:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20050211001847.BC1ED212D25@newdev.harvard.edu> (Scott Bradner's message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:18:47 -0500 (EST)")
Message-ID: <iluy8dv9934.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=failed version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yxa-iv
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.81, clamav-milter version 0.81b on yxa.extundo.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002

sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) writes:

> I've just published draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt 
>
> this ID addresses the issues of extracting RFCs and derivative works

Thanks!

The proposed RFC 3667 update in section 2 looks like an improvement to
me.  It is clear we disagree on permitting unrestricted derivate
works.  Let me try to rebut your arguments:

Re 3: The fact that W3C, ITU etc behave similar to IETF is not a
convincing argument to me.  The Unicode Consortium permit modified
versions of their standards to be published (again, kudos to them!),
see <http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html>.

Re 3.2.1: I don't buy that this will create any significant confusion.
I think you need to show that confusion exists in other areas where
modified derived works are permitted.  I.e., for Unicode or for RFCs
before RFC 2026.  I further think that Larry Rosen's suggestion is too
complex and too costly to implement for the IETF.

Re 3.2.2: Working groups typically close after they are done with a
core specification.  Further, WGs are not required to review or help
anyone modify the product of a WG.  Thus, I challenge that the "best
place" to extend a standard is within the WG that created it.  One of
my examples has been StringPrep/IDN, that WG doesn't exist any more.

Re the second 3.2.2 (the section numbering seem off): This appear to
be the same argument as 3.2.1, i.e., that permitting modified
documents would create confusion or problems.

Re 3.2.3: The requirement to be able to modify documents come from
free software developers like myself.  It may be the case that the
open source community do not need this requirement, but I don't see
the relevance.  Further, the argument that the free software community
could come to the IETF if they want to extend standards is weak: there
is nothing that guarantee that the IETF will be around forever or that
it will welcome the free software community.  It must be possible to
modify free software without talking to the IETF about it.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg