> On 9 Mar 2022, at 14:15, Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I don't like to guess, > > Let's not guess, let's ask the authors directly. > >> Can someone – probably one of the authors, not Ted – why they feel it is necessary to not allow derivative works? > >> In the past there have been many RFC’s that documented existing cryptographic algorithms: Blake2, ChaCha/Poly, etc. None of them say no derivatives. > > Why do you want no-derived-changes? Given that the IETF almost never does this, I would expect this to be a hard requirement to justify. Gary, why was this added? Having looked at the discussion in RFC3667 sections 5.2 and 7.3 it seems that this is appropriate for re-publishing documents from other standard bodies, and to protect proprietary technologies. The robots.txt is based on a long-standing industry practice, defined by a historical specification and de-facto (diverging) implementations, but not a standard body. And the proprietary technology protection doesn’t apply either. So I agree it should not be there. — Martijn -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
