[rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

Harald Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Jul 20 10:26:07 PDT 2009


Julian Reschke wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> ...
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to understand whether this change affects me.
>
> So...
>
> 1) Many specs I'm editor of contain ABNF. Does it need to be labeled 
> as code component (I believe not).
In my understanding, all ABNF is code by definition (included in the 
Trust's list of "things considered code"), so no.
>
> 2) These specs also collect all ABNF fragments into an appendix, 
> containing the collected ABNF. Does that appendix need to contain the 
> BSD license text (I believe not, but heard from colleagues that their 
> docs are blocked because they do not).
I believe it would be silly to make it contain the BSD license.
Some people on the IESG seem to think that the IESG has made such a 
statement; one of my WGs has a couple of documents that are blocked 
until this is resolved.
>
> 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the purpose 
> of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do I need to include 
> the BSD license text? If so, can somebody explain how to do that given 
> the constraints of the ABNF syntax?
; is a fine character. A block of comment should be fine.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list