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

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

--On Monday, 09 October, 2006 10:45 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<joel at stevecrocker.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, the code often contains normative information,
> and very frequently is very helpful for actually understanding
> the RFC.  I can not see, for example, moving the MIB to an
> attachment to an RFC.  Without the MIB text, there is no
> substance.  Hence, I think it would be a very bad idea to
> require that all code that is to be modifiable (as per the WG
> rough consensus)  be in a separate attachment.

Of course, if we wanted to go down that path, an alternative
would be to make the RFC complete, but to put everything that
can be arbitrarily modified into some library somewhere
(maintained by the RFC Editor or otherwise) and create licensing
rights for the content of the library that was different from
the rights for the material in the RFC, even though subsets of
both were equivalent.

As reference to the library from the RFC would make that library
the effective equivalent of the RFC-plus-attachments approach,
without the problem pointed out above.

This is _not_ a proposal, merely an attempt to point out that
(i) that third option is out there and (ii) it has been
discussed before and never definitively accepted or rejected.

     john


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