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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Jul 11 22:30:51 PDT 2021

On 12-Jul-21 15:48, John Levine wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I can see that, but it would be messy (for example) to look for
someone whose affiliation and street address belong to a no-longer
existing company; so messy cases probably come with the territory. 
>> 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.

Understood. I agree that the obvious short-term measure is to advise
use of <postalLine>. Worry about changing the formal definition later.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list