Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The second, changing the text, is not something I or the IETF community support.
Well, I don't claim to speak for the whole IETF community, but this is certainly something I support.
No one is claiming that someone is going to edit the RFC and claim to have a new, better RFC (without going through the RFC update/errata process), and the grant in question specifically disclaims anyone's right to do that.
But, particularly for a document like this, which is defining a codec mapping, I would hope that people would be free to borrow this text for future mappings: either of Opus into another container or another codec into Ogg, or even something totally unrelated to either if it applies.