RFCs - insufficiently free? [LWN.net]

RFCs - insufficiently free?

Posted Jul 17, 2003 3:46 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957)
In reply to: RFCs - insufficiently free? by wa1hco
Parent article: RFCs - insufficiently free?

You can't possibly think that changing the text in RFC XYZQ actually changes the standard described in RFC XYZQ. That's absurd. That's like saying I shouldn't be able to use some ls(1) source code (say, the directory traversal code) in a program to delete files, because then ls won't list files anymore.

Rather, what Debian wants is the ability to use the text from RFCs elsewhere - free software documentation, for example. Or being able to write a standard based off of RFC 1234, *clearly identified as not being RFC 1234*, but using parts of the standards document.

Don't confuse the text of the standards document with the actual standard.

(Log in to post comments)

RFCs - insufficiently free?

Posted Jul 19, 2003 22:35 UTC (Sat) by pascal.martin (subscriber, #2995) [Link]

A standard is defined by its text. There is no other reference that exists, unless one is ready to accept proprietary implementation as a substitute, Microsoft Windows style...

Thus it becomes highly critical that when someone makes reference to a given standard, everyone knows what _exact_ text it is.

This is also why standards have revision numbers. A given standard with a given revision number is assumed to represent a given, unaltered, text.

Without this protection, the notion of standard is a joke and Microsoft policy of non-conforming implementation becomes morally right.

Restricting the change of a standard is therefore a _major_ protection of freedom (i.e. freedom of creating conforming implementation), exactly like restricting the changes to a constitution text is a major protection of citizen's freedom.

IMHO, a standard is not a text like others. It is a reference text that is trusted by everyone. Probably standard bodies should start issuing official signature for the text of their standard, including certified translations.

RFCs - insufficiently free?

Posted Jul 24, 2003 9:02 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]

Revision numbers are useless if you can't make revisions! Compare RFC 2068 and RFC 2616. One is clearly an updated version of the other, but the release of RFC 2616 changed nothing about what people mean when they refer to RFC 2068. What Debian is saying is that it would be a bad thing if *only* the IETF could ever release an updated version of RFC 2616.