At 6:41 PM +0200 6/14/07, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >The ABNF syntax is the most important, since being compatible with the >technology requires that you follow the formal definition of the URL. >Implementations cannot integrate the ABNF as-is today. The alternative >for them, to re-specify the module from the text (if that is at all >possible), is bad for interoperability. If you want to enable smooth >implementation of your standard by everyone (which I hope!), here is how >to solve it: Simon, I follow your argument for the sample code in Appendix A, but I don't follow it for the ABNF. What do you mean by "integrate the ABNF as-is today"? As I understand it, a developer reading the specification and using the ABNF to develop an implementation is within the "outbound rights" understood by the IETF community to pertain to standards track RFCs. Indeed, it's kind of the whole point. Is there something special about this document that causes you to believe that it needs special licensing for the specification? If you do believe the ABNF needs special licensing in this case, I am sorry to say that your remedy is not sufficient. This document imports ABNF from other documents (from RFC 3986, to take one important example). Those documents do not have anything like what you suggest. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf