My comment had nothing to do with the accuracy of references.
It was in reply to what looks like your comment that exclusion of the
right to produce derivative works is "OK since this is documenting
ITU material". I thought my point was clear, and apologize for any
confusion it may have caused.
To repeat, hopefully making it clearer this time: it seems somewhat
of a problem when unrestricted copyright is granted without the right
to produce derivative works. If the intent is to include copies as a
form of derivative work, then there are worse problems. What is the
intent of the restriction in this draft?
To further clarify what I meant by derivative works, check out these
These are good examples of what I was talking about as possible
"derivative works". They are not exact copies, especially in the second
case which includes hyper-links to at least some referenced material (e.g.
- RFC references).
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
We had already found one incorrect reference, and we
checked with the author, and he agrees it is incorrect
and that we should fix it. (UNI 1.0 instead of 1.1)
The document references ITU documents G.7713 and G.8080
Thos as clear references (I think) to documents as they
are known in ITU. So I see no issue.
It probably should also reference G7713.3, which I think is
still missing. I am checking with the author as we speak.
It is quite possible that in ITU process it is OK to refer
to G7713 and that that automatically includes the G7713.x
documents. Can ITU folk explain.
In any event, when a document is being prepared by RFC-Editor
for final publication, they always check the references and
check with the authors if anything seems incorrect or
From: Eric Gray [mailto:ewgray(_at_)graiymage(_dot_)com]
Sent: donderdag 23 januari 2003 18:18
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Bob Braden; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
A common example of useful "derivative" work is to modify the
document such that references include URLs and include it in
web-sites. There are any number of private, or semi-private
- and maybe one or two public - web sites that have provided
hyper-linked versions of Internet Drafts in just this way.
Because this document explicitly excludes derivative works, this
doing this for this (eventual) RFC - or, more likely, sets
someone up for
trouble if they have already done so.
I'm not sure why an RFC might be granted perpetual unrestricted
copyright but not allowed in derivative works. Is the intent to
include copies as derivative works?
It seems a good idea to provide justification - or at least and
explanation - if an intended RFC is no in complete compliance with
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
I noticed today that I gave an incorrect answer to one of
Kireeti's points. He asked and I answered:
I would like to know what the intent is in not granting
"the right to produce derivative works",
Did Steve Trowbridge not answer the first question?
This is in the Draft-aboulmagd-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt document.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to
produce derivative works is not granted.
But this is OK since this is documenting ITU material.
Bert and Scott