In message <A73AFF7EC44A0A16BD02EC59@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeffrey Hutzelman writes: > > >On Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:15:18 PM -0500 Russ Housley ><housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Most RFCs do not contain source code. The IESG discussed this situation, >> and felt that the explicit licenses was the right thing to do in this >> situation. Including source code without any indication of the authors >> intent seemed much worse. > >I fail to see the difference between this case and that of RFC1321. >That was also an informational document describing a hash algorithm >originally specified outside the IETF. It also included a reference >implementation, under remarkably similar license terms. It was right to >publish that document in 1992, and it is just as right to publish this one >today. > In the abstract, you're completely correct. But IETF procedures have tightened up a lot since 1992; we're much more aware of certain things. I'm not saying it's wrong to include that license today -- fortunately, I no longer have to have an opinion on such things! -- but I don't think that 1321 is a binding precedent. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf