On 14 October 2011 18:03, J.D. Falk wrote:
I'm okay with either, with a slight preference for including it in the
Acknowledgements section. MAAWG understands that this kind of boilerplate is
unusual for IETF documents.
Should I submit a new draft with these changes?
I'd still prefer s/the largest/a/ or s/the largest/a large/ or similar.
Others asked about the "non-derivative" blurb, and maybe I missed the
answer for these questions. What is the idea? Clearly modifying the
RFC while still claiming that it is a MAAWG document without consent
of the MAAWG makes no sense. This doesn't need extraneous legalese.
Otherwise the content of the memo is perfectly harmless, if others
wish to create their own "derivative" version, what is the problem?
Please keep the "codify",
Ietf mailing list