Brian, > On May 26, 2026, at 8:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Regards/Ngā mihi > Brian Carpenter > > On 27-May-26 13:53, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Hiya, >> On 27/05/2026 02:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> While I feel sure we need to say "no plagiarism", >> Is that actually well-defined for I-Ds? We have a tradition >> that someone can pick up the ball and run with it, whenever >> something needs revising. > > Absolutely. The context is "no plagiarism except from RFCs" > (modulo the pre-5378 derivative works gotcha).
I don’t think it is plagiarism if the work from other RFCs is cited. Bob > >> That mostly involves earlier text >> authors being involved but not always. Similarly, we often >> copy chunks of text from document A to document B without >> asking the authors of A. Those are almost never problematic >> with our boilerplate (and are almost always done well), but >> I dunno if there's a definition of plagiarism that fits what >> we want. >> I'm also not sure we want to make a local definition of >> plagiarism. > > Well, we *certainly* don't want to rewrite RFC5378 here. But > borrowing from external sources is a different matter, and > possibly illegal, but WANL (we are not lawyers). > > Brian > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
