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

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:25:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:44:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What any sensible person would do in such a situation would be to go
> > through the trouble of writing and submitting a new RFC which is
> > distributed alongside the program, rather than modifying RFC2822 (or
> > rather 2821, which defines SMTP) and distributing that modified version.
> (did you mean to reply to me privately?)

No, sorry. Assuming you didn't either:

> What if the IETF don't want to publish it?

Well, that's their right, although it's very unlikely the IETF would
not want to publish anything related to network standards. Even if they
wouldn't, you could write something that references the original RFC,
and distribute that original RFC along with your other document.

As you would do would you write a new RFC.

You'd never modify RFC2822's contents, and distribute that *as* RFC2822,
would you?

> What if my modification is a 
> joke? (Parody is protected in certain parts of the world, but not 
> universally)

In that case, you probably wouldn't be modifying it, you'd be writing a
new document. If that weren't the case, (i.e., you'd be modifying just
one sentence in a joking manner), you'd deserve to be shot for confusing
people all over the place.

Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a
full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." 
  -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.

Attachment: pgpQYiF1A9C6Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: