Ben's recent response to Tim captures the main point, but to reinforce
what's said there:
We learned a lot as a community from going through the development of
RFC6716, and there's been strong sentiment expressed that we wouldn't
do things like produce normative code again. I think if we were able to
repeat the exercise fresh, knowing what we learned, that we also
wouldn't have made this copyright change in just this way. However, the
most relevant point is that with RFC6716 we at least had an exceptional
condition to point to. This draft does not have that.
It is not clear to me how the things you are hoping to achieve with this
extra language are not already available to you (under fair use for
example). In the copy below, you elided my suggestion that the draft
argue why the existing boilerplate is insufficient.
It _is_ fairly clear to me that the kind of change you're asking for is
not really specific to this draft, though.
The community developed a set of acceptable boilerplate text blocks. The
draft should use what we have, or convince the community that we need to
change what we allow for RFCs.
RjS
On 1/28/16 9:10 PM, Ron wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 02:44:41PM -0600, Robert Sparks wrote:
This document has an unusual feature that I think needs to be highlighted in
this last call.
Section 13 instructs the RFC editor to:
In the Copyright Notice at the start of the document, the following
paragraph is to be appended after the regular copyright notice text:
"The licenses granted by the IETF Trust to this RFC under Section 3.c
of the Trust Legal Provisions shall also include the right to extract
text from Sections 1 through 14 of this RFC and create derivative
works from these extracts, and to copy, publish, display, and
distribute such derivative works in any medium and for any purpose,
provided that no such derivative work shall be presented, displayed,
or published in a manner that states or implies that it is part of
this RFC or any other IETF Document."
I understand why we did what we did for RFC6716 (the specification for OPUS,
where the additional grants were to deal with the code being normative).
I do not think it is the right thing to do for this document.
Could you spell out in a bit more detail what you see as being different
for this document, and what your concerns are with either (or both!) the
letter and the intent in this case.
I really would like to understand your concerns, and if necessary have
this evolve into language that does cover everyone's needs and fears as
comprehensively as we can.
We've got nearly 4 years behind us now with no terrible abuse of this
grant having occurred for 6716, but if you think it's less than ideal,
I'd like us to consider ways we can still improve on that.
Cheers,
Ron