>IANAL (other disclaimers incorporated by hand-waving), but a >plain-English reading of this indicated that the text gives >permission to modify the text of the template itself. It does, but I don't see what practical problem this causes. Templates are functional, so the copyrights on them are pretty thin in the first place, and once extracted from the RFC without the rest of the RFC text, what do we care? We've allowed modified versions of code components for quite a while, and as far as I know that hasn't caused any problems for the IETF. The proposed language looks OK to me. I have no strong opinion on the effect on RFCs derived from old RFCs but the chances of this causing a problem in practice seem vanishingly small. R's, John