I'll add to Paul's description. Within the request, for one document, they wish to make a profile. Normally, that's fine. Except that they want to change keywords in directions that they should not be changed in a profile. For instance changing a MUST to a SHOULD or even a MUST NOT. This obviously results in the profile not being in compliance with the referenced document and therefore not interoperable.
I went through this with another SDO and was able to work through it. I am not finding the documentation to support the bounds of profiles though to determine if that sites with the response from the Trust or elsewhere. I'll keep looking, but if someone has the answer, that would be very helpful.
Thank you,
Kathleen
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:44 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2019, at 16:14, Scott Bradner wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 7:06 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> There were several later rounds of conversations about the
>> general topic on which Scott Bradber would be m8ch more expert
>> than I am, but I'd be surprised if the answer from him would be
>> significantly different from the above.
>
> It is not
>
> but I do have a question for John Levine - what is the context of your
> question?
>
> republish? produce a revision? ???
Oddly, I can answer that one. Some people quite outside the IETF want to
publish a spec for how to do $foo over the Internet. Their spec quotes
small parts of various RFCs to make the requirements clear for the
vendors who will implement $foo because those vendors do not normally
use IETF standards. They were unsuccessful in finding how to get
permission to quote from RFCs, and by circuitous route got to me. I
passed them along to the IETF Trust, and that's where John's message
originates. (Side-note: they didn't know who Jon Postel was or how to
reach him to ask about getting the right to quote RFC 768. I had to
break that news to them...)
--Paul Hoffman
Best regards,
Kathleen
