--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 07:42 +0300 Pekka Savola
<pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf