Brian E Carpenter wrote: > How about adding some weasel words, or even simply making the > attribution requirement a "should"? I tend to forget the details, but IIRC we have a SHOULD for an attribution elsewhere (not in the part about code). If that is very clear folks might arrive at the conclusion that it's also *desired* for code snippets. But not *required*. > It's not like we're asking for much: > # This code was derived from IETF RFC XXXX. Please retain this > comment if possible. Not fair. We can't put code with similar statements in an RFC in some cases, where somebody also didn't "ask for much", just a beerware licence or copyright note or similar. Therefore we should also not "ask for much" from others if there's a chance that this is too much. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf