--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 07:42 +0300 Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 9 May 2011, Steve Crocker wrote: >> A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a >> statement in the boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs >> are available free of charge online from ..." >> >> The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this >> statement. If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads >> this statement, he is unlikely to pay $47 again. > > I suspect those who are inclined to pay $47 for an RFC are > very unlikely to read any boilerplate statements on the RFC. > > While I could live with this, I fear adding more boilerplate > just creates more boilerplate and not much else. I note that, for many years and prior to requirements for extensive boilerplate, every RFC bore the note "Distribution of this memo is unlimited", which was intended to accomplish a much more general version of the (admittedly more clear) statement Steve suggests. While we could probably control the problems, any statement in an archival document that specifies a location (like "available... from...") is almost inherently problematic. The problem of archival stability of location information is the reason why the various generations of the "How to Obtain RFCs" document to which Ole refers has always been accessed indirectly, not included in RFCs (the most recent incarnation is represented by the statement "RFCs may be obtained in a number of ways, using HTTP, FTP, or email. See the RFC Editor Web page http://www.rfc-editor.org"; in the RFC Index and elsewhere. Given that and observations about how frequently any obvious boilerplate is actually read, I agree with Pekka's conclusion. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf