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

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks at dial.pipex.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Josefsson" <jas at extundo.com>
To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks at dial.pipex.com>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>; <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: #1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?


> "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks at dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
> >> > * Fix spelling typos
> >>
> >> Opinion: OK, as is translation from English
> >>
> > Disagree, your fixing a typo is my change of meaning; even a change of
> > punctuation can change the meaning.
>
> Changing the meaning isn't fixing a typo.  If fixing a typo changes
> the meaning of the protocol, it is no longer a "good-faith" typo fix.
>

I repeat, your typo can be my change of meaning,

I saw posts recently along the lines of

A ...SSL....
B ... you mean SSH
A ... no I don't

A had made reference to public keys; B 'knew' that public keys were associated
with SSH while SSL went with certificates so obviously this was a typo; no it
wasn't, B's knowledge was not as great as it might have been.  There are plenty
of Bs around, which is why you should not correct typos.

Tom Petch

> 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".
>
> (Of course, I argue that modifications should be permitted as well,
> but that is another discussion.)
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


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