>>>>> "scott" == scott bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
scott> seems to be a reliable way to ensure that there are
scott> multiple understandings of what the standard actually is -
scott> I find it hard to understand who that is good for
Do you think that trying to describe a modified version of TCP without
taking text from the original RFC is likely to lead to a better
situation?
Honestly I think the issue of whether derivative works can use text
from the original is distinct from whether derivative works can be
confused with the original.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf