Re: #1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, 02 May, 2006 10:55 -0700 Ted Hardie
<hardie at qualcomm.com> wrote:

> At 12:02 PM +0200 5/2/06, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "There may be edge cases, but I'd say that if a "typo fix"
>> leads to even minor technical differences, it isn't a "typo
>> fix" anymore, but must be treated as a "modification".
> 
> The problems really come in when the individual doesn't fully
> understand what is being specified and fixes it to something
> they do understand.  In one recent exchange with a technical
> editor, for example,  "uuencoded" got fixed to "unencoded".  I
> presume that the editor did not know what uuencoded meant, and
> did know what unencoded meant; the paragraph made sense with
> "unencoded" in that slot, but that wasn't what was intended.
> 
> I think the discussion so far has convinced me that the
> appropriate way to handle this is to make the correction in
> commentary, e.g. "This is specified in the RFC as  BAR =
> numchar, but I believe that BAR = 1*numchar was meant, and I
> have implemented accordingly" .  I would obviously suggest
> putting in an erratum for the RFC as well.

Of course, such commentary is of the nature of a critical review
and does not raise any of the same copyright issues as
incorporating the original text in modified form.

> For typos like "there implementation", insert a "sic" if you
> can't stand leaving it, and be done.

Agreed, fwiw.
    john


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