[rfc-i] summary of Removing postal information from RFCs

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sun Jul 11 20:48:38 PDT 2021


It appears that Brian E Carpenter  <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> said:
>On 12-Jul-21 14:33, John R Levine wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>> Why do people want to do standards in the IETF rather just editing a spec in
>>> Google Docs or GitHub? One primary value that IETF adds is some kind of
>>> legal action due to copyright or patent claimed infringement, or anti-trust.
>>> It's the reason why there is a NOTE WELL.
>> 
>> FWIW, I have been a trustee of the IETF Trust for the past four years and 
>> the identities of IETF contributors have never been an issue.  That's not 
>> a very compelling argument.
>
>IANAL, but surely what counts in prior art claims is certification that
>a document *was* published , not which particular Jane Doe  wrote it.

It has never been a problem so far, but we trustees do worry about a
scenario in which an I-D or an RFC contains text that was borrowed
from someone else and the someone else objects. We have a process that
shows good faith but if we coudn't find the person who did the
borrowing, it could be messy.

>Also, do we actually have an issue here? Supplying a full address is
>already optional, judging by a number of recent RFCs.

The issue that precipitated this is that if you do provide an address,
the complex format we're currently using turns out to depend on an
abandonware formatting library.

R's,
John


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list