Tim Salo wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 23:36:00 -0700
> > From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
> >
> > > >From RFC 2026, Section 10.3.1. All Contributions:
> >
> > There are many IDs (a couple of which I also wrote) which
> > predate that RFC which are being proposed.
> >
> > It is not the archival of post-2026 IDs that is of concern,
> > nor the basic idea of keeping an archive. However, it seems
> > reasonable to expect, as copyright OWNER of the material of
> > those pre-2026 IDs, that we be _asked_ for permission to post.
>
> >From RFC 1602:
>
> 5.4. Rights and Permissions
>
> In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
> various forms and from many persons. To facilitate the wide
> dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to establish
> specific understandings concerning any copyrights, patents, patent
> applications, or other rights in the contribution. The procedures
> set forth in this section apply to contributions submitted after 1
> April 1994. For Internet standards documents published before
> this date (the RFC series has been published continuously since
> April 1969), information on rights and permissions must be sought
> directly from persons claiming rights therein.
> Note that your claims highlight the importance of one of the major
> motivations for the creation of the ISOC and the formalization of the
> intellectual property rights to documents submitted to the IETF,
> namely the difficulty faced by those wishing to create compilations of
> RFCs.
Compilations of RFCs are different from IDs. IDs were designed
to disappear; that is a condition under which they were (and are)
written. That's why RFC2026 explicitly indicates the conditions
under which ID material will be made available after the 6-mos
limit. And why it may have a chilling effect to do otherwise.
Joe
