Perhaps a way out of this conundrum is to periodically publish
historical RFCs that are "survey papers" on a particular topic and
would include some ideas from old ID's. These RFCs would
describe the problem, some of the proposed solutions, and a
(technical) description of why or why not each solution was
adopted, as well as the current thinking on the problem.
I've often scratched my head while reading a spec and
wondered "Why the heck did they do it *that* way?", later
to find out there was a reason (and often, its a good one).
Of course this doesn't solve the problem of properly
acknowledging or referencing the original work, but in this
case, a ref to an ID would seem suitable. Failing that one
can always do an inline acknowledgment: "An ID published
in June 1997 by J. Smith introduced the concept of..."
While it seems clear that an author may want to maintain
copyright and "ownership" of the original text, I don't see how
they could claim ownership to the idea if they submit it to
a standards organization. And if they don't like how the
IETF tweaks their idea, well its not hard to publish it in its
pure form in other fora...
-Mike
"Mike O'Dell" <mo(_at_)UU(_dot_)NET> on 09/30/2000 08:14:25 AM
Sent by: "Mike O'Dell" <mo(_at_)UU(_dot_)NET>
To: "Eliot Lear" <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
cc: "John C Klensin" <klensin(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org,
mo(_at_)UU(_dot_)NET (Mike
Borella/MW/US/3Com)
Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
one point you are ignoring when it comes to publishing just
anything as an RFC: once it has that designation "RFC",
THE IDEA IS SANCTIFIED, no matter what disclaimers you
plaster all over it. (Even a biohazard symbol with a
legend reading "DANGER: LIVE EBOLA" wouldn't help. Ooops -
can't do the symbol in ASCII - sorry - bad idea.)
i know it isn't supposed to be this way, but
THIS IS REALITY - GET OVER IT.
the IETF has been in denial about this problem
for many years. I personally submitted an alternative
which was roundly defeated as it had the temerity to
try and bring intent in line with current reality.
instead, people decided to continue insisting that
reality was as they desired, not as it is.
until this get fixed, worrying about any one
incident is worse than pointless - it continues
the denial.
have a nice day.
-mo
PS - i let the draft in question expire because i wanted to.
that's the nice thing about expiry - the author retains a tiny
modicum of control over something. the notion that people
other than the author can usurp control and publish it anyway
is repugnant and is plagarism, pure and simple, no matter
whether the author gets listed or not. you didn't have permission,
it's plagarism, if not theft.