Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diego meeting slot)

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>]

Comment below the text, to ensure full context because I think this 
is the crux of the matter.

At 11:48 AM 10/5/2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Remember, the RFC is not normally used as an implementation library.
> > We are not trying to provide sample (much less reference) code.  We
> > are trying to provide enough information that people will build
> > interoperable implementations.
>
> I'm not sure I share this view.  There are RFCs whose purpose is to
> provide easy access to actual implementations, e.g., RFC 4634.  They
> are useful.  I would prefer if more RFCs were accompanied with
> relevant example code, because I find them helpful when implementing
> the document (regardless of whether I use the code or not).

It seems to me that if the code is important enough that we want to 
publish the code in an RFC, then we need to make that code available 
to everyone to use.  That means it can not be subject to rules 
requiring publication of changes, or distribution of source, or any 
other such license restrictions.  If it is reasonable to say that 
only some readers can make use of the code, then it probably suffices 
to include an informational reference that says "sample code that is 
believed to implement this RFC can be found, along with its licensing 
conditions at URL X://Y.Z"

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern


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