Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 07:42 +0300 Pekka Savola pek...@netcore.fi wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011, Steve Crocker wrote: A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the boilerplate of every RFC that says, RFCs are available free of charge online from ... The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement. If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to pay $47 again. I suspect those who are inclined to pay $47 for an RFC are very unlikely to read any boilerplate statements on the RFC. While I could live with this, I fear adding more boilerplate just creates more boilerplate and not much else. I note that, for many years and prior to requirements for extensive boilerplate, every RFC bore the note Distribution of this memo is unlimited, which was intended to accomplish a much more general version of the (admittedly more clear) statement Steve suggests. While we could probably control the problems, any statement in an archival document that specifies a location (like available... from...) is almost inherently problematic. The problem of archival stability of location information is the reason why the various generations of the How to Obtain RFCs document to which Ole refers has always been accessed indirectly, not included in RFCs (the most recent incarnation is represented by the statement RFCs may be obtained in a number of ways, using HTTP, FTP, or email. See the RFC Editor Web page http://www.rfc-editor.org; in the RFC Index and elsewhere. Given that and observations about how frequently any obvious boilerplate is actually read, I agree with Pekka's conclusion. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
--On Monday, May 09, 2011 21:47 -0400 Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net wrote: This reminds me of what a colleague once said about government-run lotteries: A tax on people who are bad at math. In this case the fools don't seem to be throwing all that many dollars away (at least not per document). Indeed. And, as others have pointed out, the sums are relatively trivial for the communities of fools most likely to be affected. I always took that to be the point of the comments of Jon's to which Bob and I referred: someone who finds the costs (both monetary and waiting for documents to show up in the post) painful enough to motivate a little research will swiftly find free and immediate sources for the documents. If those who find the costs lower than the cost of spending time on that research want to pay for the documents, it isn't our problem and we should not strive to make it so. It seems to me that not having the series available in IEEE Xplore and having documents in the ACM Digital Library but not indexed by RFC number is a problem in that searching for the documents is a little harder than it ought to be and is our problem (even though typing RFC 793 into at least few general-purpose search engines does yield pointers to non-cost repositories). Requests to fix both the ACM and IEEE problems have been made to the relevant folks. Beyond that, unless someone has a cure for fools, I suggest this is a problem that is not worth our putting energy into solving. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
It seems to me that not having the series available in IEEE Xplore and having documents in the ACM Digital Library but not indexed by RFC number is a problem in that searching for the documents is a little harder than it ought to be and is our problem (even though typing RFC 793 into at least few general-purpose search engines does yield pointers to non-cost repositories). Requests to fix both the ACM and IEEE problems have been made to the relevant folks. It's not just that. A little poking around in the ACM DL reveals that they don't have any RFCs published after May 2004. It looks like someone did a one time data dump, and nothing since. It's also fairly annoying that if you aren't a subscriber, they want you to pay $15 before they'll give you a URL, but I suppose their funding has to come from somewhere. In IEEE Xplore, I can't find any RFCs at all, no matter how I search for them. Search for Transmission Control Protocol and you'll find lots of articles but no RFCs. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 13:20 + John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: ... It's not just that. A little poking around in the ACM DL reveals that they don't have any RFCs published after May 2004. It looks like someone did a one time data dump, and nothing since. It's also fairly annoying that if you aren't a subscriber, they want you to pay $15 before they'll give you a URL, but I suppose their funding has to come from somewhere. I ran a few tests, but didn't try to figure out how current their catalog is. Will complain about that too. As to the price, yes, I think these library arrangements (whether by subscription or per-article) are a little costly for individuals. On the other hand, if one has an RFC number --which would come from the sort of reference Bob cited to start this thread and that one would inevitably get from the ACM DL if they included RFC numbers in the search-- the a trip to your favorite general-purpose engine with the number does yield URLs to freely-accessible copies. I have only tried three of them, but the documents aren't hard to find and the indexing seems to be current through at least documents published last month. So, again, free may be slightly less convenient (or slightly more), but I don't see this as a problem we need to solve on the IETF list. I will ping ACM again about not being up to date. In IEEE Xplore, I can't find any RFCs at all, no matter how I search for them. Search for Transmission Control Protocol and you'll find lots of articles but no RFCs. I found what you found, i.e., no RFCs but several articles that referenced them. I thought I said that in an earlier note, but maybe I wasn't clear. best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the boilerplate of every RFC that says, RFCs are available free of charge online from ... The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement. If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to pay $47 again. +1 -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
On 05/09/11 19:53, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On May 9, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Eric Burger wrote: Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug. IEEE Xplore regularly does deals (read: free) to add publishers to the digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if you are more likely to get a hit using their service, you are more likely to use the service. We (RFC Editor? IAOC? Me as an individual?) can approach IEEE to add the RFC series to Xplore. Or the IETF Trust could do this, as it falls squarely within the purpose of the Trust. soapbox The Trust should not do. The Trust should set policy, and observe that the Right Thing Happens. /soapbox In the case of Google Scholar, I found the guidelines to be a bit intimidating: http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html but not something that would be hard for the RFC publisher to set up in a few hours based on the PDF form of the RFCs and the rfc-index.xml file. FWIW: The RFC series does have an ISSN. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Google Scholar, was How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
In the case of Google Scholar, I found the guidelines to be a bit intimidating: http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html but not something that would be hard for the RFC publisher to set up in a few hours based on the PDF form of the RFCs and the rfc-index.xml file. Actually, now that I look at their guidelines, I'm sort of surprised that they're not in Scholar. They say they'll index HTML versions of documents so long as they have meta tags that have the title, author, and other bibliographic info and it has references it can crawl to do cross links to other documents. The HTML versions in tools.ietf.org/html look to me like they have the right tags. The problem may be that the meta tags are missing some minor item, that it can't recognize the references sections, which should be a matter of tweaking the HTML a little bit, or maybe that there isn't a TOC page that lets it recognize all the RFCs as a collection. Whatever it is, it doesn't look like it'd be hard for someone with sufficient spare time to fix. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Google Scholar, was How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
On 05/10/11 17:28, John Levine wrote: In the case of Google Scholar, I found the guidelines to be a bit intimidating: http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html but not something that would be hard for the RFC publisher to set up in a few hours based on the PDF form of the RFCs and the rfc-index.xml file. Actually, now that I look at their guidelines, I'm sort of surprised that they're not in Scholar. They say they'll index HTML versions of documents so long as they have meta tags that have the title, author, and other bibliographic info and it has references it can crawl to do cross links to other documents. The HTML versions in tools.ietf.org/html look to me like they have the right tags. The problem may be that the meta tags are missing some minor item, that it can't recognize the references sections, which should be a matter of tweaking the HTML a little bit, or maybe that there isn't a TOC page that lets it recognize all the RFCs as a collection. Whatever it is, it doesn't look like it'd be hard for someone with sufficient spare time to fix. For some reason, scholar has indexed 151 docs from tools.ietf.org and then stopped. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enq=site%3Atools.ietf.orgbtnG=Searchas_sdt=0%2C5as_ylo=as_vis=0 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enq=site%3Atools.ietf.orgbtnG=Searchas_sdt=0%2C5as_ylo=as_vis=0 R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Google Scholar, was How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
On May 10, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: For some reason, scholar has indexed 151 docs from tools.ietf.org and then stopped. If only there was someone who worked at Google on this list who could send an internal message to get this rectified :-) --Paul Hoffman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Google Scholar, was How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/10/11 6:14 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On May 10, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: For some reason, scholar has indexed 151 docs from tools.ietf.org and then stopped. If only there was someone who worked at Google on this list who could send an internal message to get this rectified :-) wasn't there this Norwegian guy that worked there? Klaas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk3JZecACgkQH2Wy/p4XeFI1qACdEGmWlx6n1aguOZAYOIRbvgSo XTEAn0Oa3+ZgBTrw/xYMakPoyzWDyXK/ =TzHv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03
Hi Doug, At 16:56 04-05-2011, Doug Barton wrote: Blessed is rather strong. There are a non-zero number of people in both groups (of which I am one) who don't like the draft, and don't agree that documenting bad ideas is its own virtue. If I have to go by the document shepherd write-up, only one person expressed discontent about this proposal, hence the above comment. [snip] Meanwhile, the discussion about whether or not to call this whitelisting is pointless. The term is already well-established. No comment for obvious reasons. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: capturing the intended standards level, Re: Last Call: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP
Hi Julian, At 22:12 09-05-2011, Julian Reschke wrote: rfc2629.xslt allows specifying the intended maturity in the XML source...: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#rfc.section.12.1.p.2 ...but it's only metadata in the XML source. Maybe we should add it to the ID boilerplate in the future? I'll ignore details such as authors running an ASCII version of their draft through Id-nits. Quoting Alexey: Sometimes references get reclassified during IESG review and this causes downrefs. The issue can occur at the IESG evaluation stage. With the new RFC Editor Model, it's unlikely to occur during AUTH48. If intended maturity is viewed as a mechanical issues and what you suggested fixes 80% of the problem, it may be worth a try. One could also argue that the IESG might see a value in having a reference reclassified (things you need to read to implement this specification). Instead of trying to capture the intended standards level, you could simply approve publication as Experimental. The author gets a RFC number. The IESG does not have to repeat the Last Call. Obviously, authors will lobby against that. :-) If you would like a glimpse of the outside world, read the thread at http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2011-May/005514.html Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
On Dienstag 10 Mai 2011, J.D. Falk wrote: On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the boilerplate of every RFC that says, RFCs are available free of charge online from ... The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement. If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to pay $47 again. +1 +1. Best regards -- === Dr. Thomas Dreibholz University of Duisburg-Essen, Room ES210 Inst. for Experimental Mathematics Ellernstraße 29 Computer Networking Technology GroupD-45326 Essen/Germany --- E-Mail: dre...@iem.uni-due.de Homepage: http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh === signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Google Scholar, was How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 20:22 +0200 Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no wrote: If only there was someone who worked at Google on this list who could send an internal message to get this rectified :-) From what I could tell from the instructions, Scholar is using some heuristics to figure out that this is a paper and this is not a paper. The highest one on the list was a 3-slide presentation that really didn't say very much - I think this is one where heuristics had failed. I think someone at the site could help them a lot more. Harald, I'm not sure what you mean by someone at the site. Certainly, various of us could explain to them why the series should be more comprehensibly indexed. But with Maps as a notable exception, I've found that suggesting that a particular heuristic is failing, or that something should have been indexed that isn't, is most likely to get a response whose essence is the Google folks and their algorithms are ever so much smarter then us lusers, so what could we possibly know? Of course, my personal heuristic, and that of many folks I know who use Scholar much more intensely than I do, is that if a Scholar search fails or produces nonsense, I go to the general-purpose search engine. For RFCs, it tends to do very well, both at finding the right stuff and at ranking the RFC text itself near the top. So, other than being lazy about not doing the second search, pedantic about what Scholar should be indexing and how, or demanding and expecting a more perfect universe, I'm not sure I see a real problem in this. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
Interestingly, when I look at the references from IEEE Xplore when I access Xplore from Georgetown, instead of the built-in Xplore reference, I get a GU search option, which does pop up the IETF copy of the RFC. In any event, I happen to know a few people at IEEE. They are looking in to it, it being adding the RFC series to Xplore. On May 10, 2011, at 9:34 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 13:20 + John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: [snip] In IEEE Xplore, I can't find any RFCs at all, no matter how I search for them. Search for Transmission Control Protocol and you'll find lots of articles but no RFCs. I found what you found, i.e., no RFCs but several articles that referenced them. I thought I said that in an earlier note, but maybe I wasn't clear. best, john smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Google Scholar, was How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
On 05/10/2011 10:08 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 20:22 +0200 Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no wrote: If only there was someone who worked at Google on this list who could send an internal message to get this rectified :-) From what I could tell from the instructions, Scholar is using some heuristics to figure out that this is a paper and this is not a paper. The highest one on the list was a 3-slide presentation that really didn't say very much - I think this is one where heuristics had failed. I think someone at the site could help them a lot more. Harald, I'm not sure what you mean by someone at the site. Certainly, various of us could explain to them why the series should be more comprehensibly indexed. But with Maps as a notable exception, I've found that suggesting that a particular heuristic is failing, or that something should have been indexed that isn't, is most likely to get a response whose essence is the Google folks and their algorithms are ever so much smarter then us lusers, so what could we possibly know? The instructions at Scholar were pretty comprehensive and specific: - Make either your abstracts or your documents into HTML - Put a very specific selection of tags into your documents - Report your collection to the Scholar robot We can either ignore this particular set of instructions, and get the result that the heuristics generate, or follow this set of instructions, and hope for a better result. My point (if I have any) is that those instructions should be easy to follow for the people who control these sites, but are not so easy for anyone else (unless they want to act as if they are an official mirror). That puts the ball in the RFC publisher's court. Of course, my personal heuristic, and that of many folks I know who use Scholar much more intensely than I do, is that if a Scholar search fails or produces nonsense, I go to the general-purpose search engine. For RFCs, it tends to do very well, both at finding the right stuff and at ranking the RFC text itself near the top. So, other than being lazy about not doing the second search, pedantic about what Scholar should be indexing and how, or demanding and expecting a more perfect universe, I'm not sure I see a real problem in this. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
Bob Braden wrote: I wonder how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay references.. It's common (much more than 50% for academic ones, IMHO) that sold articles are freely available on-line. For example, a PDF file of the paper End-to-end arguments in system design can be purchased for $15 from: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1145/357401.357402 which is the first link appears in google scholar search with the paper title, or, from: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=357401.357402 to which the above IEEE link is redirected, but is available free of charge from: http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf which is the second link (next to google scholar one) with plain google search. It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free versions before entering transactions to purchase them than to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
time = money On May 10, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Bob Braden wrote: I wonder how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay references.. It's common (much more than 50% for academic ones, IMHO) that sold articles are freely available on-line. For example, a PDF file of the paper End-to-end arguments in system design can be purchased for $15 from: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1145/357401.357402 which is the first link appears in google scholar search with the paper title, or, from: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=357401.357402 to which the above IEEE link is redirected, but is available free of charge from: http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf which is the second link (next to google scholar one) with plain google search. It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free versions before entering transactions to purchase them than to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
Eric Burger wrote: time = money Yes. It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free versions before entering transactions to purchase them than to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc. So? Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free versions before entering transactions to purchase them than to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc. So? I expect that most people who use those databases have site licenses, so they don't care whether the articles are nominally free or not. When I need to do database searches, I go to the Cornell engineering library where I can get (quite legally) onto Cornell's network and use their institutional subscriptions. If I find something interesting, I click on it and download it, and have no idea whether it would have asked a non-subscriber to pay or not. I'm more worried that the ACM doesn't have any RFCs issued in the past seven years than that they ask non-subscribers to pay for the ones they do have. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793
John Levine wrote: It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free I expect that most people who use those databases have site licenses, so they don't care whether the articles are nominally free or not. When I need to do database searches, I go to the Cornell engineering library where I can get (quite legally) onto Cornell's network and use their institutional subscriptions. If I find something interesting, I click on it and download it, and have no idea whether it would have asked a non-subscriber to pay or not. Though my institute also have the license for the paper, I was at home when I wrote my previous mails, which means I must set up a tunnel to access the paper through my institute, which is a lot more time consuming than just search a free copy. Worse, I might have set up a tunnel only to have found that my institute does not have a site license for the paper. According to the end to end principle, we should not rely on intelligent intermediate entities such as university libraries, ACM, IEEE and google scholar so much but just try dumb search engines first. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Document Action: 'IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax'' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax'' (draft-ietf-enum-iax-10.txt) as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Telephone Number Mapping Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-enum-iax/ Technical Summary This document registers an Enumservice for the IAX protocol according to the guidelines given in RFC 6117. Working Group Summary This document represents a standard Enumservice registration and as such was noncontroversial. Document Quality IAX in the Asterisk Open Source software is globally deployed in lots of systems. The purpose of this document is to provide these systems means for easier interconnection. Personnel Gonzalo Camarillo is responsible AD. Bernie Hoeneisen is the document's shepherd. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
New Non-WG Mailing List: mile -- Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: m...@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile/ To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile Purpose: This list is for discussions, collaboration, and development of a document describing a subset of the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) aimed at exchanging incident information focused on those things which people actually exchange, and which is easily readable by anyone potentially interested. This list will also be used to collaborate and formalize additional extensions needed by the IODEF and RID community to ensure current relevant use cases for the exchange of incident information are accommodated. For additional information, please contact the list administrators. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
WG Action: Conclusion of Telephone Number Mapping (enum)
The Telephone Number Mapping (enum) working group in the Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure Area has achieved the goals for which it was created and has now concluded. The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks. The mailing list will remain open and the list archive will be retained. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
