<co-chair-hat position=on>
At 12:09 PM -0700 10/25/05, James M Snell wrote:
Um.. fundamental problem with all of this talk about rAPP: last two
sentences, first paragraph:
"This document may not be modified, and *derivative works of it may
not be created*. This document may only be posted in an
Internet-Draft." (emphasis added)
The above wording (minus the asterisks) is exactly what is prescribed
at <http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html>, section 4, option
(b). A bit further down, that document says "Statement (b) is used
along with the publication limitation statement below when the
contributor does not intend for the Internet-Draft to be published as
an RFC." And, further still, "This notice can be used on
Internet-Drafts that are intended to provide background information
to educate and to facilitate discussions within IETF working groups
but are not intended to be published as an RFCs."
And the explanation given on Robert's blog: "This is to prevent the
working group from using the same words that I do, and then
completely mangling the definition, which is a chronic habit of
theirs" (http://www.franklinmint.fm/blog/archives/000485.html)
The members of the IETF tend to post off-list interesting things
about active IETF work. Many of those things raise the ire of other
people in the IETF. 'Twas ever thus.
In other words, Robert has disallowed the working group from
building off his ideas even tho many of those ideas were developed
as a result of conversations held in this forum. Anything the
working group produces that incorporates ideas from Robert's draft
if a "derivative work" which is expressly forbidden.
Those are "other words", but they are also wrong. Rob is disallowing
the WG from using his original words in an RFC. Ideas =! words. If
Rob has copied words from Internet Drafts or open discussion in the
WG, he cannot (and did not) protect them ex post facto.
</co-chair-hat>
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
