-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/28/2016 03:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I think that this is a very bad idea. The point of doing the work > to create an RFC is to reach agreements on what the words should > be. Saying after that "oh, but anyone else can change these words > any way they want" just does not work for me. The main issue here is not that people would like to change what the RFC says. It's quite the opposite in fact. People would like to be able to reuse parts the RFC text in other contexts (e.g. documentation for a piece of software that relies on several RFCs). Without additional rights, they would have to paraphrase the content of RFCs, which would actually lead to more compatibility problems. Also, the proposed text already includes the condition "provided that no such derivative work shall be presented, displayed, or published in a manner that states or implies that it is part of this RFC or any other IETF Document". Given that, I'm not sure what the problem is. Cheers, Jean-Marc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWqoEbAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9a1wH+wY6k2UP7iYQjLng6XQ79hgD W7pklezNzSXUlohTcUMK6s9n03fa1rK2jJcslDGgpO/qqzqdUDbEAlqqZhH2H+hc KXac5S6XVp56k0/QGPuyap9Ijshurs5ehvnYvBAuqcWAb9u9HaYlylZtH9/e482c Cretot8m5d2quZ1i3j23HccrfLiyve097OufY2sdgbzL1Xzu5qwcn/xJh27ccFtN 0Cbhigr7r6b8rNM/9VHSIF50shM2EuqULHBj+ABJbGfGIcWq4zRVJOsY0OqMaFcS 42y/974N/Admp6en1kITfdD6ZOn3jJpON6QOpaFRiGCiW3OsGs9AMCjZ+do4KM4= =WfO7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----