Hi David,
At 08:37 09-09-2009, David Harrington wrote:
But wait. According to the heading, if approved, this draft will
obsolete RFC2731. Which are we doing Historic, or Obsolete? (can you
do both simultaneously?)
There is a subtlety between Obsolete and Historic.
Is it because the effort to standardize failed? (Did the Initiative
want to keep editorial control, and when they found out they couldn't
if it was standard, they took their ball and went home? Is this draft
That's an interesting question.
RFC 5013 has an Informative reference to RFC 2731.
RFC2731 contains perl code. They are published with this text that
appears to be a license: "They may be
taken and freely adapted for local organizational needs, research
proposals, venture capital bids, etc."
If RFC2731 is obsoleted, does this in any way affect the license and
the legal rights of implementers of RFC2731? This is not discussed.
This is only a reclassification. The RFC will still be there. In my
opinion (this is not legal advice), it does not affect how the code
can be used.
I don't want new boilerplates, but there are a bunch of issues related
to this document that are simply not discussed. I think this document
should include (very small) sections that reflect that copyright
issues have been considered; that authors rights in RFC2731 have been
It's problematic to discuss copyright issues in the document.
considered; that migration issues for implementers of RFC2731 have
been considered; that licensing issues for the contained code have
been considered. None of this has been documented, so a reader cannot
know whether these have been considered and not documented, or simply
overlooked.
It's the same stance as for "IPR".
You brought up valid concerns. I would have some apprehension to put
them in a draft.
At 10:40 09-09-2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
As far as I recall, I borrowed structure and text from RFC 4794
("RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", moving RFC 1264 to *historic*). (Steal with Pride).
I would not steal that RFC as its topic is different from the one you
are writing about. :-)
This is a purely administrative RFC. It doesn't define any protocol
or format. It just says: "look somewhere else for up-to-date
versions". That really does not require Security Considerations.
You could say something along those lines in the Security
Considerations section.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf