Hi Eliot, I find myself a bit out of context here.
If I understood correctly, the two statements (you mentioned below) are expected to be included in every published MUD profile. Right? That makes sense to me -- happy to help. Regards, Hassan ________________________________ From: Eliot Lear Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 6:55 PM To: Carsten Bormann Cc: [email protected]; Hassan Habibi Gharakheili Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Source attribution in MUD files (RFC 8520) Ok, I'm copying Hassan. I can write a very quick draft to cover this. I think what we are talking about are two statements: * Copyright: [who, when] * License pointer: URL or "unlimited use by anyone for any reason" * The default would be the latter. This would be an UPDATE to 8520, with a SHOULD for its use. Sound about right? Eliot On 21.05.21 09:45, Carsten Bormann wrote: On 2021-05-21, at 09:25, Eliot Lear <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Hi Carson, How about sticking it in the documentation the file is linked to? We thought about that, too. However, this requires the URI to be very stable, because you wouldn’t fulfill the CC-BY otherwise. Putting the attribution right inside sounds less brittle. Otherwise we should do a very short extension. I don’t know what process this WG wants for this. It would also be interesting to hear whether other people have run into the issue. (For one data point, the MUD profiles at https://iotanalytics.unsw.edu.au/mudprofiles don’t seem to have a license at all so it is a bit illegal to use them.) The issue about sticking it in the mfg-name is that it'll have UX consequences. (This suggestion was more of an application of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law .) Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
