[rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream

Fred Baker fred at cisco.com
Mon Sep 14 15:42:23 PDT 2009


I have read your draft, and I have a question.

I have in the past presumed that "no derivative works" implied that an  
internet draft could not be published as an RFC, as an RFC is itself a  
derivative work. A case in which I used that reasoning related to the  
one draft in which I have ever used that status - one of the inputs to  
the SAVI working group. I was asked to describe what Cisco did in a  
particular case, and as the working group seemed very unwilling to  
read Cisco's web page on the topic, I copied the Cisco web page text  
into a no-d-r draft. My viewpoint was (and is) that even if the  
working group wanted to standardize exactly what Cisco had done, it  
should do so as "this is what the working group decided", not "fine,  
do what Cisco does, everyone else is".

What this draft suggests to me is that the RFC *should* be published,  
and that somehow those rights or lack of them should be recorded in or  
recorded regarding the RFC.

Help me here? Do I misunderstand the meaning of "no derivative works"?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list