On 27-May-26 20:51, Colin Perkins wrote:
On 27 May 2026, at 2:53, 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. 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.
Every definition of plagiarism I can find talks about misrepresenting another
person’s work as your own. I don’t see plagiarism concerns in our processes,
provided appropriate credit is given.
Indeed. I'll check again, but I think the present draft distinguishes clearly
between plagiarism from outside sources and borrowing text within the RFC
Series.
Also, it says that stream policies override the general policy, and it cites
RFC 9775.
Brian
The way we phrased this for the IRTF, in RFC 9775, was:
Plagiarism, misrepresentation of authorship, and content
falsification constitute dishonesty and fraud. Such actions
are prohibited and the IRTF may take action against authors
who commit them, including…
and
The IRTF publishes informational and experimental documents
in the RFC series. The nature of these documents, and their
preceding Internet-Drafts, is that they often extend or
elaborate upon previously published research results, to
support ongoing development and experimentation by the IRTF
community. These documents are encouraged as an important
part of the process of disseminating research ideas and
ensuring that they work in the Internet at large. Authors
must ensure that prior work, including their own prior work,
is appropriately cited and acknowledged, and that new documents
respect the copyright of prior work and are written with the
permission of any coauthors.
IRTF documents may represent the views of their authors or
they may be consensus documents representing the views of a
research group. It is a misrepresentation for authors to
falsely claim that a document represents the consensus view
of a research group. Similarly, the editors of a research
group consensus document must not misrepresent their role
as that of authors.
This text won’t directly work for the IETF, but something similar could be
suitable.
Colin
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
