[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the RFC mess: tentative summary



On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 05:11:30PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> >  2. Standards gain their value from their rigid rigid procedure for updates
> >     and modifications.
> >       or:
> >     Who needs to edit the RFCs by the way?
> >       or:
> >     Keep cool, IETF are good guys, sharing some goals with us.
> >
> >     Answer 2: As long as the IETF is a good willing institution, that's fine,
> >       but what will happen in 10 years? If they disapear, we need the *right*
> >       to modify the existing RFCs to create new ones, and fork the
> >       standardisation process.
> >      This is not very different forking gcc: in both cases it's generally a
> >       bad idea, but the health of a free system depends on it being
> >       potentially possible.
> 
> Er, hasn't it always been that you never modify an RFC, but just create a new
> one, that subsumes the old?  There are countless cases of this already(DNS
> being a prime example).
> 
> I highly doubt that this would ever change.

You're thinking of IETF policy, rather than licensing.

> >     Answer 3: If I want to document a program following quite well a given
> >       RFC, but not completely, it's easier for me to edit the RFC file (and
> >       rename it of course) than paraphrasing it. If I'm not allowed to do
> >       this edit, I'll probably never document those changes, which is a loss
> >       for the users.
> >      Same thing for comments in code explaining which part of the RFC
> >       constraints some design decision.
> 
> Why would you need to edit and rfc to say that your program doesn't follow it?
> This makes no sense to me.

More clearly, you can't take text from the RFC and use it in your own
documentation. Or in a subsequent standard, for that matter.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Attachment: pgpoG0IQjSIQf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: