On 01/28/2016 04:07 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > So either the open source communities needs to be able to change the > text, or it does not need to be able to change the text, or it has > created rules for itself where it needs to be permitted to change the > text even though it does not actually want to change. > > The first, not changing the text, is already covered. > The second, changing the text, is not something I or the IETF community > support. It depends on your definition of "changing the text". There's a lot of pretty reasonable changes you can make to get the RFC text to better fit within a new document without changing the meaning. Any of these sure beats "paraphrasing a section of the RFC" from a compatibility point of view. > The third would seem to be a different problem, and asking the IEtF to > change its rules for that seems a VERY strange answer. There's certainly a bit of that as well. But keep in mind there's no "chair of the open source community" who can change all the rules. Cheers, Jean-Marc > Yours, > Joel > > On 1/28/16 3:59 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec