Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10.txt> (Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:09, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:

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.

The IETF made an exception to the TLP policies for RFC 6716 not because it was a codec definition per se, but because the normative definition was in the code components. The BSD licensing for code components already allowed derivative works for the code components themselves, but there was a perceived need to also be able to modify text to document any modification of "normative" code components.

That reasoning does not apply to this draft, since it does not have normative code components. Can you elaborate on whether it is different from other IETF standards track documents in some other way that might justify such an exception?

Thanks!

Ben.




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]