On Sunday, December 12, 2004 16:19:39 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
whatever the merits of Pete's suggestion I think John makes a very
important point when he says that it would be better to refer to a RFC by
number rather than a BCP by number (and title) because the text can
change while keeping the same BCP number (wwhich can not happen for
RFCs) - this means that the IETF could (in theory) change the rules
later on and bind to the ISOC to someting they did not get a chance
to agree to.
Indeed, this is a critical point. While in theory an IETF process BCP
cannot be amended without an ISOC BoT resolution, it is still the case that
formal commitments of the sort we are asking ISOC to make should involve
stable references, not mutable ones.
This is actually a problem which I recently noticed with RFC3667, which
requires the following notice to be included in IETF documents:
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year). This document is
subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP
78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their
rights."
This has the effect of reserving to the authors any rights not granted
to the IETF or ISOC and which the IETF does not later decide it wants to
grab by amending the BCP.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf