[rfc-i] [Ietf-and-github] New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-git-xiax-automation-00.txt

Henrik Levkowetz henrik at levkowetz.com
Tue Feb 26 10:48:18 PST 2019


Hi Stephan,

On 2019-02-26 19:05, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> I believe the first mentioning of code markers was in the attached
> email, which was on the IPR WG mailing list on a thread in the
> context of the copyright RFCs (BCP78).
> Stephan

I believe you're right.

The first use in a draft could be draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-dot-x-10.txt,
from December 3, 2008, which would be after Brian's proposal.  I thought I'd
seen it in use earlier, but it seems I was wrong.

	Henrik

> 
> 
> On 2/26/19, 09:25, "Ietf-and-github on behalf of Henrik Levkowetz" <ietf-and-github-bounces at ietf.org on behalf of henrik at levkowetz.com> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Joel,
>     
>     On 2019-02-26 18:19, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>     > RFC 5377 section 4.3 calls out that code has different copyright grants 
>     > than other parts of the document.  It describes various examples of 
>     > code, and then asks the IETF Trust to specify textual marking for code 
>     > so that authors can be explicit and can mark things that may not be 
>     > obvious by the examples.
>     > 
>     > So it goes back a lot earlier than 6087.
>     > And as far as I know goes back to before there was any tooling support 
>     > for the markings.
>     
>     Indeed.  And later, when there was discussion about possible code markings,
>     I proposed that we use the <CODE BEGINS>, <CODE ENDS> introduced by RFC 6087,
>     rather than inventing something new.
>     
>     Regards,
>     
>     	Henrik
>     
>     > 
>     > Yours,
>     > Joel
>     > 
>     > On 2/26/19 11:52 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>     >> 
>     >> 
>     >>> The original reason for "CODE BEGINS" etc was for licensing (to 
>     >>> clarify that part of the content is considered to be a "code component").
>     >> 
>     >> 
>     >> Perhaps and, if so, then the markers may still have a purpose.
>     >> 
>     >> That said, I only know the markers coming from 
>     >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.2, which came from 
>     >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6087#section-3.1.   As the co-chair and 
>     >> shepherd for these drafts, I assure you that my limited understanding 
>     >> for the original motivation is correct.   It's not intended to have any 
>     >> relationship to copyrights, though RFC6087 conflates both a module-level 
>     >> copyright (inside the YANG module) and markers (outside the YANG module) 
>     >> in Section 3.1, which we de-conflicted in RFC8407.
>     >> 
>     >> Kent
>     >> 
>     >> 
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Ietf-and-github mailing list
>     >> Ietf-and-github at ietf.org
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>     >> 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rfc-interest mailing list
>     > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>     > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>     > 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> Ietf-and-github at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20190226/b8de506c/attachment-0001.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list