[rfc-i] Committee for opposing more tedious boilerplate (was:
rousskov at measurement-factory.com
Tue Apr 13 16:08:38 PDT 2004
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
> It is my understanding that the lawyers don't like this sort of
> idea, precisely because of the ease with which a web page can be
> changed out from under a document, resulting in conditions
> different from those under which the document was published.
The text and/or links can be polished to accommodate any lawyer demands
IETF would like to accommodate. I suspect all such accommodations can
continue to occur at the end of the document, so they seem to be
irrelevant to this "boilerplate is tedious" discussion.
> While the other three lines you list might work, the bulk of the
> boilerplate today is lawyer-associated or lawyer-induced, so the
> savings might not be great.
Great! Since the legal stuff is all at the bottom of the document
(except for a single Copyright line which can be moved as well), it
seems to be irrelevant to your complaint that adding more non-legal
information to the boilerplate [at the beginning of the document]
> --On Tuesday, 13 April, 2004 16:34 -0600 Alex Rousskov
> <rousskov at measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> > John,
> > IMO, the logically correct action here is to limit the size of
> > the boilerplate, NOT the amount of information! For example,
> > here is a 6-line boilerplate that can be used to express
> > everything in the current RFC boilerplate and everything you
> > mentioned in your plea below:
> > This document specifies an IETF _____ Standard. The
> > following resources are incorporated here by reference:
> > Legal: http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/legal?v1.1
> > Status: http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/st?rfc1234
> > Errata: http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/err?rfc1234
> > Help: http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/help
> > The text, labels, and URLs should be polished, but you get the
> > idea...
> > Alex.
More information about the rfc-interest