Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[todd glassey]

  
  
On 5/8/2011 3:06 PM, Bob Braden wrote:

  
  I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation, shall
  we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is an IEEE
  standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care) "IEEE
  Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems C37-118(TM)-2005",
  which is currently of great importance for the instrumentation of
  the national power grid. I just noticed that it references RFC
  793, and for curiosity looked to see how it was referenced. I
  found:
  
     [B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA Internet
  Program Protocol Specification.[12]
  
  OK so far, except maybe for the DARPA part. Now look at footnote
  12:
  
     12   RFC standards are available from Global Engineering
  Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, USA (http://global.ihs.com/).


Hmmm. Does the IETF publication license allow this? the commercial
resale of its documents?

Doesnt this also then tend to violate the intent of the IP Trust and
its role? One would think if anyone was to make money on
republication of IETF intellectual properties it was supposed to be
the IETF's trust. 

Todd

 
  Going to that web site, you find:
  
  

  
RFC 793 
  - Complete Document 
  
  
 Revision / Edition: 81
     Chg:    Date: 09/00/81   
  
  
 TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM
  PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION 

  

  


  

  
  

  
  
  

  
 Comments: 

   
  
  
 Superseding
Document:  
   
  
  
 Page Count:  
 90  
  
  
 In Stock:  
 Yes  
  
  
 Hardcopy Price: 

 $ 47.00  
 
  

  
  
  and:
  
  

  
Customers

who purchased RFC 793 have also purchased
  
  
  
EIA-748
  : EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
  
  
  
IETF

RFC 2460 : INTERNET PROTOCOL, VERSION 6 (IPV6)
  SPECIFICATION
  
  
  
RFC

768 : USER DATAGRAM PROTOCOL
  
  
  
RFC

791 : INTERNET PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM
  PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION
  

  
  
  Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an IETF,
  Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What astonishes
  me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know RFCs are available
  free online. I guess RFCs remain so counter-cultural that
  industrial types don't get it. I wonder how many other IEEE
  standards contain similar RFC-for-pay references..
  
  Bob Braden
  
  

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



  

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[todd glassey]

  
  
On 5/8/2011 3:31 PM, todd glassey wrote:

  
  
  On 5/8/2011 3:06 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
  

I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation,
shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is an
IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care) "IEEE
Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems C37-118(TM)-2005",
which is currently of great importance for the instrumentation
of the national power grid. I just noticed that it references
RFC 793, and for curiosity looked to see how it was referenced.
I found:

   [B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA
Internet Program Protocol Specification.[12]

OK so far, except maybe for the DARPA part. Now look at footnote
12:

   12   RFC standards are available from Global Engineering
Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, USA (http://global.ihs.com/).
  
  
  Hmmm. Does the IETF publication license allow this? the commercial
  resale of its documents?
  
  Doesnt this also then tend to violate the intent of the IP Trust
  and its role? One would think if anyone was to make money on
  republication of IETF intellectual properties it was supposed to
  be the IETF's trust. 

Try this search - but this also opens the question as to what any
other contributor in an effort's rights to are in subsidiary
publications?

http://global.ihs.com/search_res.cfm?currency_code=USD&customer_id=2125442C5B0A&shopping_cart_id=2925583B2B4B303C495A2D5B260A&country_code=US&lang_code=ENGL
 
  Todd
  
   
Going to that web site, you find:


  

  RFC 793  - Complete Document 


   Revision / Edition:
81    Chg:    Date: 09/00/81   


   TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM
PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION 
  

  

  
  

  


  



  

   Comments: 
  
     


   Superseding
  Document:  
     


   Page Count:  
   90  


   In Stock:  
   Yes  


   Hardcopy Price: 
  
   $
  47.00  
   

  


and:


  

  Customers


  who purchased RFC 793 have also purchased


    
  EIA-748
: EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS


    
  IETF


  RFC 2460 : INTERNET PROTOCOL, VERSION 6 (IPV6)
SPECIFICATION


    
  RFC


  768 : USER DATAGRAM PROTOCOL


    
  RFC


  791 : INTERNET PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM
PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION

  


Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an
IETF, Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What
astonishes me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know RFCs
are available free online. I guess RFCs remain so
counter-cultural that industrial types don't get it. I wonder
how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay
references..

Bob Braden


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

  
  
  

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



  

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Yoav Nir]

A bargain!  RFC 5996 goes for $58.

Does it come leather-bound with the title gold-stamped on the cover?

On May 9, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Bob Braden wrote:

I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation, shall we say, in 
the IEEE electric power community. There is an IEEE standards document C37.118, 
entitled (you don't care) "IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems 
C37-118(TM)-2005", which is currently of great importance for the 
instrumentation of the national power grid. I just noticed that it references 
RFC 793, and for curiosity looked to see how it was referenced. I found:

   [B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA Internet Program 
Protocol Specification.[12]

OK so far, except maybe for the DARPA part. Now look at footnote 12:

   12   RFC standards are available from Global Engineering Documents, 15 
Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, USA (http://global.ihs.com/).

Going to that web site, you find:

RFC 793 - Complete Document
Revision / Edition: 81Chg:Date: 09/00/81
TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION

Comments:
Superseding Document:
Page Count: 90
In Stock:   Yes
Hardcopy Price:  $ 47.00


and:

Customers who purchased RFC 793 have also purchased

EIA-748
 : EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
IETF RFC 
2460
 : INTERNET PROTOCOL, VERSION 6 (IPV6) SPECIFICATION
RFC 
768
 : USER DATAGRAM PROTOCOL
RFC 
791
 : INTERNET PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION

Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an IETF, Jon 
Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What astonishes me is that 
clever people in the IEEE don't know RFCs are available free online. I guess 
RFCs remain so counter-cultural that industrial types don't get it. I wonder 
how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay references..

Bob Braden



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John Levine]

>Going to that web site, you find:
>
>*RFC 793* *- Complete Document*
>*Revision / Edition: 81Chg:Date: 09/00/81 *
>TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION

Yes, that's ridiculous, but in reality it's our fault as much as
theirs.  Whoever wrote PC37.118 probably copied the reference to RFC
793 from some older standards document using cut and paste, which
someone else copied from some standard written back in the 1980s when
most industrial users weren't on the Internet.  In 1985 if you wanted
a copy of an RFC, and didn't happen to know someone who was hooked up
to the Internet and understood FTP, sending an order to GED to get a
paper copy and have it charged to the company's account was a
perfectly reasonable thing to do.  Even now, if you work at General
Electric, how much time is it worth to avoid spending $47 of the
company's money? Five minutes, maybe.

Today if you're an IEEE type, and you wonder where to find RFC 793, or
you're wondering what RFC 793 is about, and you look it up in IEEE
Xplore, the online library that all electrical engineers use, and that
their employers have site subscriptions for, you'll find ... nothing.
Yes, you can find it in Google, but Google isn't a particularly good
place to look for engineering papers.  Xplore is.  RFCs aren't in the
ACM Digital Library, either, same problem.

If we want the world to use RFCs, we desperately need to make them
easier to find in the places where technical users look for them.
Getting them indexed in Xplore and ACM DL and whatever their equivalents
are in Europe and Asia would be a good project for the new RFC Editor.

R's,
John


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John R. Levine]

Yes, you can find it in Google, but Google isn't a particularly good
place to look for engineering papers.  Xplore is.  RFCs aren't in the
ACM Digital Library, either, same problem.


Nor is it in Google Scholar, which is generally where I look first.


There's a lot of overlap.  I'm pretty sure that everything in Xplore 
and ACM DL is automatically in Scholar.


This isn't an enormous project, but it requires figuring out which online 
libraries are worth getting into, making the necessary arrangements with 
them (which may or may not involve money), a batch process to load in all 
the existing RFCs, and arrange with the production house to ensure that 
each new RFC gets listed as it's published.  Most of these systems include 
abstracts and forward and backward references, which will doubtless 
require some debugging to make them work reliably.


Like I said, it's a good project for the new RFC series editor.  It should 
be a lot easier than deciding how to put Chinese names into RFCs.


Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Steven Bellovin]

On May 8, 2011, at 7:44 58PM, John Levine wrote:

> 
> Today if you're an IEEE type, and you wonder where to find RFC 793, or
> you're wondering what RFC 793 is about, and you look it up in IEEE
> Xplore, the online library that all electrical engineers use, and that
> their employers have site subscriptions for, you'll find ... nothing.
> Yes, you can find it in Google, but Google isn't a particularly good
> place to look for engineering papers.  Xplore is.  RFCs aren't in the
> ACM Digital Library, either, same problem.

Nor is it in Google Scholar, which is generally where I look first.


--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John C Klensin]

--On Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:06 -0700 Bob Braden
 wrote:

> I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation,
> shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is
> an IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care)
> "IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems
> C37-118(TM)-2005", which is currently of great importance for
> the instrumentation of the national power grid. I just noticed
> that it references RFC 793, and for curiosity looked to see
> how it was referenced. I found:
> 
> [B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA
> Internet Program Protocol Specification.[12]
>...
> Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an
> IETF, Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What
> astonishes me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know
> RFCs are available free online. I guess RFCs remain so
> counter-cultural that industrial types don't get it. I wonder
> how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay
> references..

Bob,

What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not,
was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of
preventing fools from throwing their money away.  And, of
course, it is in the interest of Global Engineering Documents
--which, in the era in which few folks had direct access to the
Internet was one of the better sources for miscellaneous
technical standards documents-- to let people continue to
believe that they are a convenient and standard (sic) source.



--On Sunday, May 08, 2011 21:26 -0400 "John R. Levine"
 wrote:

>...
> This isn't an enormous project, but it requires figuring out
> which online libraries are worth getting into, making the
> necessary arrangements with them (which may or may not involve
> money), a batch process to load in all the existing RFCs, and
> arrange with the production house to ensure that each new RFC
> gets listed as it's published.  Most of these systems include
> abstracts and forward and backward references, which will
> doubtless require some debugging to make them work reliably.
> 
> Like I said, it's a good project for the new RFC series
> editor.  It should be a lot easier than deciding how to put
> Chinese names into RFCs.

+1

I do note, however, that RFCs appear to be listed in ACM's Guide
to Computing Literature (essentially part of the ACM Digital
Library at this stage).  Putting "Transmission Control Protocol"
into the search mechanism turns up RFC 793 in a hurry.  And,
behold, they have full text available and retrieving it works
without any charges other than the access fees for the Digital
Library itself.  "RFC Editor" is even on their list of
publishers for search purposes.  

The problem is that the titles they index do not contain the RFC
numbers, so looking up "RFC793" or "RFC 793".  That is not a
decision to avoid indexing the series (which would require the
process John outlines to reverse) but a bug.   I have filed a
bug report as Digital Library feedback.

john





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Mark Nottingham]

If only there were some uniform resource locator system, whereby we could use a 
string to both identify and locate such a document, and include such a string 
*in* our specifications. 

A pipe dream, I know...


On 09/05/2011, at 10:41 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:

> 
> On May 8, 2011, at 7:44 58PM, John Levine wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Today if you're an IEEE type, and you wonder where to find RFC 793, or
>> you're wondering what RFC 793 is about, and you look it up in IEEE
>> Xplore, the online library that all electrical engineers use, and that
>> their employers have site subscriptions for, you'll find ... nothing.
>> Yes, you can find it in Google, but Google isn't a particularly good
>> place to look for engineering papers.  Xplore is.  RFCs aren't in the
>> ACM Digital Library, either, same problem.
> 
> Nor is it in Google Scholar, which is generally where I look first.
> 
> 
>   --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Ole Jacobsen]

And since we are tripping back through memory lane, Jon Postel and I 
co-authored RFC 980 which tells you how to order protocol documents, 
including the collections we made at SRI. Not sure I remember the 
price for these books, but to quote from the RFC itself:

"For hardcopy distribution from the NIC there is a charge of $5 for
 each RFC that is less than 100 pages, and $10 for each RFC that 
 is 100 pages or more to cover the cost of postage and handling
 (check, money order, or purchase order accepted)."

We had a special line printer for this purpose and a machine called a 
"burster", something I have not seen or heard about in about 25 years.
Time flies when you're having fun and stuck with ASCII documents :-)


Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo


On Mon, 9 May 2011, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:06 -0700 Bob Braden
>  wrote:
> 
> > I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation,
> > shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is
> > an IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care)
> > "IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems
> > C37-118(TM)-2005", which is currently of great importance for
> > the instrumentation of the national power grid. I just noticed
> > that it references RFC 793, and for curiosity looked to see
> > how it was referenced. I found:
> > 
> > [B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA
> > Internet Program Protocol Specification.[12]
> >...
> > Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an
> > IETF, Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What
> > astonishes me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know
> > RFCs are available free online. I guess RFCs remain so
> > counter-cultural that industrial types don't get it. I wonder
> > how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay
> > references..
> 
> Bob,
> 
> What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not,
> was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of
> preventing fools from throwing their money away.  And, of
> course, it is in the interest of Global Engineering Documents
> --which, in the era in which few folks had direct access to the
> Internet was one of the better sources for miscellaneous
> technical standards documents-- to let people continue to
> believe that they are a convenient and standard (sic) source.
> 
> 
> 
> --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 21:26 -0400 "John R. Levine"
>  wrote:
> 
> >...
> > This isn't an enormous project, but it requires figuring out
> > which online libraries are worth getting into, making the
> > necessary arrangements with them (which may or may not involve
> > money), a batch process to load in all the existing RFCs, and
> > arrange with the production house to ensure that each new RFC
> > gets listed as it's published.  Most of these systems include
> > abstracts and forward and backward references, which will
> > doubtless require some debugging to make them work reliably.
> > 
> > Like I said, it's a good project for the new RFC series
> > editor.  It should be a lot easier than deciding how to put
> > Chinese names into RFCs.
> 
> +1
> 
> I do note, however, that RFCs appear to be listed in ACM's Guide
> to Computing Literature (essentially part of the ACM Digital
> Library at this stage).  Putting "Transmission Control Protocol"
> into the search mechanism turns up RFC 793 in a hurry.  And,
> behold, they have full text available and retrieving it works
> without any charges other than the access fees for the Digital
> Library itself.  "RFC Editor" is even on their list of
> publishers for search purposes.  
> 
> The problem is that the titles they index do not contain the RFC
> numbers, so looking up "RFC793" or "RFC 793".  That is not a
> decision to avoid indexing the series (which would require the
> process John outlines to reverse) but a bug.   I have filed a
> bug report as Digital Library feedback.
> 
> john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Michel Py]

> Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> We had a special line printer for this purpose and a machine called a
> "burster", something I have not seen or heard about in about 25 years.

If you refer to the machine that separates the sheets into individual
pages when fed listing paper (continuous, but not on a roll, folded
every 11 inches with holes on the sides), they still exist. There is one
fast in the printing room for the State of California I worked on
recently. It feeds at 6 feet per second, an entire box of paper is
separated in a matter of minutes.

Michel.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Stefan Winter]

Hi,

>> Today if you're an IEEE type, and you wonder where to find RFC 793, or
>> you're wondering what RFC 793 is about, and you look it up in IEEE
>> Xplore, the online library that all electrical engineers use, and that
>> their employers have site subscriptions for, you'll find ... nothing.
>> Yes, you can find it in Google, but Google isn't a particularly good
>> place to look for engineering papers.  Xplore is.  RFCs aren't in the
>> ACM Digital Library, either, same problem.
> Nor is it in Google Scholar, which is generally where I look first.

As a KDE user, I use the incredibly short shortcut of typing "Alt+F2"
and then rfc:793

(which redirects to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt, not the GED
hardcopy reseller :-) )

But maybe "an IEEE type" (whatever that is) doesn't use KDE. Or any kind
of search engine that would yield the document in a fraction of a
second. Or the internet at all?

Stefan Winter

-- 

Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la 
Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Eric Burger]

Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug.

IEEE Xplore regularly does "deals" (read: free) to add publishers to the 
digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if 
you are more likely to get a hit using their service, you are more likely to 
use the service.

We (RFC Editor? IAOC? Me as an individual?) can approach IEEE to add the RFC 
series to Xplore.

On May 9, 2011, at 1:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:06 -0700 Bob Braden
>  wrote:
> 
>> I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation,
>> shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is
>> an IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care)
>> "IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems
>> C37-118(TM)-2005", which is currently of great importance for
>> the instrumentation of the national power grid. I just noticed
>> that it references RFC 793, and for curiosity looked to see
>> how it was referenced. I found:
>> 
>>[B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA
>> Internet Program Protocol Specification.[12]
>> ...
>> Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an
>> IETF, Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What
>> astonishes me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know
>> RFCs are available free online. I guess RFCs remain so
>> counter-cultural that industrial types don't get it. I wonder
>> how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay
>> references..
> 
> Bob,
> 
> What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not,
> was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of
> preventing fools from throwing their money away.  And, of
> course, it is in the interest of Global Engineering Documents
> --which, in the era in which few folks had direct access to the
> Internet was one of the better sources for miscellaneous
> technical standards documents-- to let people continue to
> believe that they are a convenient and standard (sic) source.
> 
> 
> 
> --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 21:26 -0400 "John R. Levine"
>  wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> This isn't an enormous project, but it requires figuring out
>> which online libraries are worth getting into, making the
>> necessary arrangements with them (which may or may not involve
>> money), a batch process to load in all the existing RFCs, and
>> arrange with the production house to ensure that each new RFC
>> gets listed as it's published.  Most of these systems include
>> abstracts and forward and backward references, which will
>> doubtless require some debugging to make them work reliably.
>> 
>> Like I said, it's a good project for the new RFC series
>> editor.  It should be a lot easier than deciding how to put
>> Chinese names into RFCs.
> 
> +1
> 
> I do note, however, that RFCs appear to be listed in ACM's Guide
> to Computing Literature (essentially part of the ACM Digital
> Library at this stage).  Putting "Transmission Control Protocol"
> into the search mechanism turns up RFC 793 in a hurry.  And,
> behold, they have full text available and retrieving it works
> without any charges other than the access fees for the Digital
> Library itself.  "RFC Editor" is even on their list of
> publishers for search purposes.  
> 
> The problem is that the titles they index do not contain the RFC
> numbers, so looking up "RFC793" or "RFC 793".  That is not a
> decision to avoid indexing the series (which would require the
> process John outlines to reverse) but a bug.   I have filed a
> bug report as Digital Library feedback.
> 
>john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Worley, Dale R (Dale)]

glassey [tglas...@earthlink.net]
> 
> Hmmm. Does the IETF publication license allow this? the commercial
> resale of its documents?

There is no copyright notice on RFC 793, but it was published after
1976, so the question would revolve around the "implicit license"
involved in publishing RFCs at the time.

> Doesnt this also then tend to violate the intent of the IP Trust and
> its role? One would think if anyone was to make money on republication
> of IETF intellectual properties it was supposed to be the IETF's
> trust.

"But someone is making money off of something, damn it, and everyone's
pissed it's not them."

Companies sell tap water in bottles at prices higher than those of
gasoline...

In practice, it doesn't matter.  You'll pay an engineer far more than
$47 to *read* RFC 793.  In the software industry, there are shoestring
startups, and the engineer is investing his labor in the company.  But
only a business can invest in designing power grid equipment, and
their engineers are being paid in cash.

Dale
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Bob Braden]

Bob,

What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not,
was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of
preventing fools from throwing their money away.

John Klensin,

Indeed, I do remember. ;-)

Bob Braden.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Marshall Eubanks]

On May 9, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Eric Burger wrote:

> Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug.
> 
> IEEE Xplore regularly does "deals" (read: free) to add publishers to the 
> digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if 
> you are more likely to get a hit using their service, you are more likely to 
> use the service.
> 
> We (RFC Editor? IAOC? Me as an individual?) can approach IEEE to add the RFC 
> series to Xplore.

Or the IETF Trust could do this, as it falls squarely within the purpose of the 
Trust.

Regards
Marshall


> 
> On May 9, 2011, at 1:32 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 15:06 -0700 Bob Braden
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> I just discovered an astonishing example of misinformation,
>>> shall we say, in the IEEE electric power community. There is
>>> an IEEE standards document C37.118, entitled (you don't care)
>>> "IEEE Standard for Synchrophasors for Power Systems
>>> C37-118(TM)-2005", which is currently of great importance for
>>> the instrumentation of the national power grid. I just noticed
>>> that it references RFC 793, and for curiosity looked to see
>>> how it was referenced. I found:
>>> 
>>>   [B8] RFC 793-1981,Transmission Control Protocol DARPA
>>> Internet Program Protocol Specification.[12]
>>> ...
>>> Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an
>>> IETF, Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What
>>> astonishes me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know
>>> RFCs are available free online. I guess RFCs remain so
>>> counter-cultural that industrial types don't get it. I wonder
>>> how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay
>>> references..
>> 
>> Bob,
>> 
>> What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not,
>> was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of
>> preventing fools from throwing their money away.  And, of
>> course, it is in the interest of Global Engineering Documents
>> --which, in the era in which few folks had direct access to the
>> Internet was one of the better sources for miscellaneous
>> technical standards documents-- to let people continue to
>> believe that they are a convenient and standard (sic) source.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Sunday, May 08, 2011 21:26 -0400 "John R. Levine"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> This isn't an enormous project, but it requires figuring out
>>> which online libraries are worth getting into, making the
>>> necessary arrangements with them (which may or may not involve
>>> money), a batch process to load in all the existing RFCs, and
>>> arrange with the production house to ensure that each new RFC
>>> gets listed as it's published.  Most of these systems include
>>> abstracts and forward and backward references, which will
>>> doubtless require some debugging to make them work reliably.
>>> 
>>> Like I said, it's a good project for the new RFC series
>>> editor.  It should be a lot easier than deciding how to put
>>> Chinese names into RFCs.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I do note, however, that RFCs appear to be listed in ACM's Guide
>> to Computing Literature (essentially part of the ACM Digital
>> Library at this stage).  Putting "Transmission Control Protocol"
>> into the search mechanism turns up RFC 793 in a hurry.  And,
>> behold, they have full text available and retrieving it works
>> without any charges other than the access fees for the Digital
>> Library itself.  "RFC Editor" is even on their list of
>> publishers for search purposes.  
>> 
>> The problem is that the titles they index do not contain the RFC
>> numbers, so looking up "RFC793" or "RFC 793".  That is not a
>> decision to avoid indexing the series (which would require the
>> process John outlines to reverse) but a bug.   I have filed a
>> bug report as Digital Library feedback.
>> 
>>   john
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Doug Barton]

On 05/09/2011 07:51, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:

Companies sell tap water in bottles at prices higher than those of
gasoline...


Fortunately gasoline is catching up fast. :)


--

Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John Levine]

In article <516ebea6-e089-4952-ae33-de799e375...@mnot.net> you write:
>If only there were some uniform resource locator system, whereby we
>could use a string to both identify and locate such a document, and
>include such a string *in* our specifications. 

It exists, it's called a DOI.  I don't understand them well enough yet
to have an opinion whether it would be worth the hassle and possible
cost of assigning DOIs to RFCs.  But if you look in Xplore and the ACM
DL, just about everything has one.

R's,
John

PS: Were you thinking of something else?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Steve Crocker]

A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the 
boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online 
from ..."

The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement.  If 
someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to 
pay $47 again.

Steve

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Dave Crocker]

+1

The elegance and simplicity of this is quite nice.

d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net

Steve Crocker  wrote:

A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the 
boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online 
from ..." The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this 
statement. If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is 
unlikely to pay $47 again. Steve_
Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, May 09, 2011 23:41 + John Levine
 wrote:

> In article <516ebea6-e089-4952-ae33-de799e375...@mnot.net> you
> write:
>> If only there were some uniform resource locator system,
>> whereby we could use a string to both identify and locate
>> such a document, and include such a string *in* our
>> specifications. 
> 
> It exists, it's called a DOI.  I don't understand them well
> enough yet to have an opinion whether it would be worth the
> hassle and possible cost of assigning DOIs to RFCs.  But if
> you look in Xplore and the ACM DL, just about everything has
> one.

John,

Depends on where you look.  DOIs are popular in some
communities, URNs in others, and, of course, some communities
have not discovered either.  For most purposes, DOIs and URNs
can be considered functionally equivalent, but one of the
differences is that if we had to pay the usual fees for DOIs to
assign them to RFCs, we might have to start charging for RFCs to
cover those costs :-).  For more on the URN approach to
identifying articles, papers, and similar things, you might look
in on what the URNBIS WG is doing and why.

Mark's (slightly tongue in cheek, I think) suggestion of URLs
actually doesn't work because they generally identify locations
at which objects can be found, rather than the object itself
(location-independent).  But that is orthogonal to the question
of preferences for DOIs versus URNs.

john





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Ross Callon]

This reminds me of what a colleague once said about government-run lotteries: 
"A tax on people who are bad at math". In this case the fools don't seem to be 
throwing all that many dollars away (at least not per document). 

Ross

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob 
Braden
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:48 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793



> Bob,
>
> What you presumably remember, but others reading this may not,
> was just how many comments Jon made about the impossibility of
> preventing fools from throwing their money away.
John Klensin,

Indeed, I do remember. ;-)

Bob Braden.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Pekka Savola]

On Mon, 9 May 2011, Steve Crocker wrote:

A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the boilerplate of 
every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online from ..."

The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement.  If 
someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to 
pay $47 again.


I suspect those who are inclined to pay $47 for an RFC are very 
unlikely to read any boilerplate statements on the RFC.


While I could live with this, I fear adding more boilerplate just 
creates more boilerplate and not much else.


--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Julian Reschke]

On 10.05.2011 03:44, John C Klensin wrote:

John,

Depends on where you look.  DOIs are popular in some
communities, URNs in others, and, of course, some communities
have not discovered either.  For most purposes, DOIs and URNs
can be considered functionally equivalent, but one of the
differences is that if we had to pay the usual fees for DOIs to
assign them to RFCs, we might have to start charging for RFCs to
cover those costs :-).  For more on the URN approach to
identifying articles, papers, and similar things, you might look
in on what the URNBIS WG is doing and why.


Reminder: we have a URN scheme of IETF documents. Maybe we should use it.


Mark's (slightly tongue in cheek, I think) suggestion of URLs
actually doesn't work because they generally identify locations
at which objects can be found, rather than the object itself
(location-independent).  But that is orthogonal to the question
of preferences for DOIs versus URNs.


Well, if the organization minting the HTTP URIs is committed to 
stability, they are almost as good as URNs. Or better, given the fact 
that you can drop them into the address bar of a browser :-)


Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 07:42 +0300 Pekka Savola
 wrote:

> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Steve Crocker wrote:
>> A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a
>> statement in the boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs
>> are available free of charge online from ..."
>> 
>> The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this
>> statement.  If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads
>> this statement, he is unlikely to pay $47 again.
> 
> I suspect those who are inclined to pay $47 for an RFC are
> very unlikely to read any boilerplate statements on the RFC.
> 
> While I could live with this, I fear adding more boilerplate
> just creates more boilerplate and not much else.

I note that, for many years and prior to requirements for
extensive boilerplate, every RFC bore the note "Distribution of
this memo is unlimited", which was intended to accomplish a much
more general version of the (admittedly more clear) statement
Steve suggests.  While we could probably control the problems,
any statement in an archival document that specifies a location
(like "available... from...") is almost inherently problematic.
The problem of archival stability of location information is the
reason why the various generations of the "How to Obtain RFCs"
document to which Ole refers has always been accessed
indirectly, not included in RFCs (the most recent incarnation is
represented by the statement "RFCs may be obtained in a number
of ways, using HTTP, FTP, or email. See the RFC Editor Web page
http://www.rfc-editor.org"; in the RFC Index and elsewhere.

Given that and observations about how frequently any obvious
boilerplate is actually read, I agree with Pekka's conclusion.

john





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, May 09, 2011 21:47 -0400 Ross Callon
 wrote:

> This reminds me of what a colleague once said about
> government-run lotteries: "A tax on people who are bad at
> math". In this case the fools don't seem to be throwing all
> that many dollars away (at least not per document). 

Indeed.  And, as others have pointed out, the sums are
relatively trivial for the communities of fools most likely to
be affected.  I always took that to be the point of the comments
of Jon's to which Bob and I referred: someone who finds the
costs (both monetary and waiting for documents to show up in the
post) painful enough to motivate a little research will swiftly
find free and immediate sources for the documents.  If those who
find the costs lower than the cost of spending time on that
research want to pay for the documents, it isn't our problem and
we should not strive to make it so.

It seems to me that not having the series available in IEEE
Xplore and having documents in the ACM Digital Library but not
indexed by RFC number is a problem in that searching for the
documents is a little harder than it ought to be and is our
problem (even though typing "RFC 793" into at least  few
general-purpose search engines does yield pointers to non-cost
repositories).  Requests to fix both the ACM and IEEE problems
have been made to the relevant folks.

Beyond that, unless someone has a cure for fools, I suggest this
is a problem that is not worth our putting energy into solving.

   john


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John Levine]

>It seems to me that not having the series available in IEEE
>Xplore and having documents in the ACM Digital Library but not
>indexed by RFC number is a problem in that searching for the
>documents is a little harder than it ought to be and is our
>problem (even though typing "RFC 793" into at least  few
>general-purpose search engines does yield pointers to non-cost
>repositories).  Requests to fix both the ACM and IEEE problems
>have been made to the relevant folks.

It's not just that.  A little poking around in the ACM DL reveals that
they don't have any RFCs published after May 2004.  It looks like
someone did a one time data dump, and nothing since.  It's also fairly
annoying that if you aren't a subscriber, they want you to pay $15
before they'll give you a URL, but I suppose their funding has to come
from somewhere.

In IEEE Xplore, I can't find any RFCs at all, no matter how I search
for them.  Search for "Transmission Control Protocol" and you'll find
lots of articles but no RFCs.

R's,
John

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 13:20 + John Levine
 wrote:

>...
> It's not just that.  A little poking around in the ACM DL
> reveals that they don't have any RFCs published after May
> 2004.  It looks like someone did a one time data dump, and
> nothing since.  It's also fairly annoying that if you aren't a
> subscriber, they want you to pay $15 before they'll give you a
> URL, but I suppose their funding has to come from somewhere.

I ran a few tests, but didn't try to figure out how current
their catalog is.  Will complain about that too.  As to the
price, yes, I think these library arrangements (whether by
subscription or per-article) are a little costly for
individuals.  On the other hand, if one has an RFC number
--which would come from the sort of reference Bob cited to start
this thread and that one would inevitably get from the ACM DL if
they included RFC numbers in the search-- the a trip to your
favorite general-purpose engine with the number does yield URLs
to freely-accessible copies.  I have only tried three of them,
but the documents aren't hard to find and the indexing seems to
be current through at least documents published last month.  So,
again, "free" may be slightly less convenient (or slightly
more), but I don't see this as a problem we need to solve on the
IETF list.

I will ping ACM again about not being up to date.

> In IEEE Xplore, I can't find any RFCs at all, no matter how I
> search for them.  Search for "Transmission Control Protocol"
> and you'll find lots of articles but no RFCs.

I found what you found, i.e., no RFCs but several articles that
referenced them.  I thought I said that in an earlier note, but
maybe I wasn't clear.

 best,
john



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[J.D. Falk]

On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:

> A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the 
> boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online 
> from ..."
> 
> The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement.  If 
> someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to 
> pay $47 again.

+1

--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Harald Alvestrand]

On 05/09/11 19:53, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

On May 9, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Eric Burger wrote:


Agreeing with John here re: it's just a bug.

IEEE Xplore regularly does "deals" (read: free) to add publishers to the 
digital library. It is part of the network effect from their perspective: if you are more 
likely to get a hit using their service, you are more likely to use the service.

We (RFC Editor? IAOC? Me as an individual?) can approach IEEE to add the RFC 
series to Xplore.

Or the IETF Trust could do this, as it falls squarely within the purpose of the 
Trust.


The Trust should not do. The Trust should set policy, and observe that 
the Right Thing Happens.



In the case of Google Scholar, I found the guidelines to be a bit 
intimidating:


http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html

but not something that would be hard for the RFC publisher to set up in 
a few hours based on the PDF form of the RFCs and the rfc-index.xml file.


FWIW: The RFC series does have an ISSN.

  Harald

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Thomas Dreibholz]

On Dienstag 10 Mai 2011, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the
> > boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge
> > online from ..."
> > 
> > The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement. 
> > If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is
> > unlikely to pay $47 again.
> 
> +1

+1.


Best regards
-- 
===
 Dr. Thomas Dreibholz

 University of Duisburg-Essen,   Room ES210
 Inst. for Experimental Mathematics  Ellernstraße 29
 Computer Networking Technology GroupD-45326 Essen/Germany
---
 E-Mail: dre...@iem.uni-due.de
 Homepage:   http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh
===


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Eric Burger]

Interestingly, when I look at the references from IEEE Xplore when I access 
Xplore from Georgetown, instead of the built-in Xplore reference, I get a GU 
search option, which does pop up the IETF copy of the RFC.

In any event, I happen to know a few people at IEEE. They are "looking in to 
it," it being adding the RFC series to Xplore.

On May 10, 2011, at 9:34 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 13:20 + John Levine
>  wrote:
> 
[snip]
>> In IEEE Xplore, I can't find any RFCs at all, no matter how I
>> search for them.  Search for "Transmission Control Protocol"
>> and you'll find lots of articles but no RFCs.
> 
> I found what you found, i.e., no RFCs but several articles that
> referenced them.  I thought I said that in an earlier note, but
> maybe I wasn't clear.
> 
> best,
>john


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Masataka Ohta]

Bob Braden wrote:

> I wonder how many other IEEE standards contain similar
> RFC-for-pay references..

It's common (much more than 50% for academic ones, IMHO) that
sold articles are freely available on-line.

For example, a PDF file of the paper "End-to-end arguments in
system design" can be purchased for $15 from:

   http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1145/357401.357402

which is the first link appears in google scholar search with
the paper title, or, from:

   http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=357401.357402

to which the above IEEE link is redirected, but is available
free of charge from:

   http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf

which is the second link (next to google scholar one) with plain
google search.

It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.

Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Eric Burger]

time = money

On May 10, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Bob Braden wrote:
> 
>> I wonder how many other IEEE standards contain similar
>> RFC-for-pay references..
> 
> It's common (much more than 50% for academic ones, IMHO) that
> sold articles are freely available on-line.
> 
> For example, a PDF file of the paper "End-to-end arguments in
> system design" can be purchased for $15 from:
> 
>   http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1145/357401.357402
> 
> which is the first link appears in google scholar search with
> the paper title, or, from:
> 
>   http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=357401.357402
> 
> to which the above IEEE link is redirected, but is available
> free of charge from:
> 
>   http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf
> 
> which is the second link (next to google scholar one) with plain
> google search.
> 
> It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
> versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
> to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.
> 
>   Masataka Ohta
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Masataka Ohta]

Eric Burger wrote:

> time = money

Yes.

>> It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
>> versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
>> to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.

So?

Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John Levine]

>>> It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
>>> versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
>>> to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.
>
>So?

I expect that most people who use those databases have site
licenses, so they don't care whether the articles are nominally
free or not.

When I need to do database searches, I go to the Cornell engineering
library where I can get (quite legally) onto Cornell's network and use
their institutional subscriptions.  If I find something interesting, I
click on it and download it, and have no idea whether it would have
asked a non-subscriber to pay or not.

I'm more worried that the ACM doesn't have any RFCs issued in the past
seven years than that they ask non-subscribers to pay for the ones
they do have.

R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Masataka Ohta]

John Levine wrote:

 It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free

> I expect that most people who use those databases have site
> licenses, so they don't care whether the articles are nominally
> free or not.
> 
> When I need to do database searches, I go to the Cornell engineering
> library where I can get (quite legally) onto Cornell's network and use
> their institutional subscriptions.

> If I find something interesting, I
> click on it and download it, and have no idea whether it would have
> asked a non-subscriber to pay or not.

Though my institute also have the license for the paper, I was at
home when I wrote my previous mails, which means I must set up a
tunnel to access the paper through my institute, which is a lot
more time consuming than just search a free copy.

Worse, I might have set up a tunnel only to have found that my
institute does not have a site license for the paper.

According to the end to end principle, we should not rely on
intelligent intermediate entities such as university libraries,
ACM, IEEE and google scholar so much but just try dumb search
engines first.

Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Yoav Nir]

Yup.

Years ago, when I was at university, I learned that the best way to find an 
article was to google the author's name, find his or her personal website, and 
the article would probably be linked from there.

Worked about 75% of the time.

Yoav 

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
Masataka Ohta
Sent: 11 May 2011 00:23
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

Bob Braden wrote:

> I wonder how many other IEEE standards contain similar RFC-for-pay 
> references..

It's common (much more than 50% for academic ones, IMHO) that sold articles are 
freely available on-line.

For example, a PDF file of the paper "End-to-end arguments in system design" 
can be purchased for $15 from:

   http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1145/357401.357402

which is the first link appears in google scholar search with the paper title, 
or, from:

   http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=357401.357402

to which the above IEEE link is redirected, but is available free of charge 
from:

   http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf

which is the second link (next to google scholar one) with plain google search.

It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free versions before 
entering transactions to purchase them than to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, 
ACM, google scholar etc.

Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Yaakov Stein]

> In IEEE Xplore, I can't find any RFCs at all, no matter how I search
> for them.  Search for "Transmission Control Protocol" and you'll find
> lots of articles but no RFCs.

Not surprising.

To quote from the site :
   The IEEE Xplore digital library is a powerful resource for discovery and 
access to scientific and technical content published by IEEE 
   (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and its publishing 
partners.

Unless I am mistaken, RFCs aren't IEEE publications.

Y(J)S

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Yaakov Stein]

> This reminds me of what a colleague once said about government-run lotteries: 
> "A tax on people who are bad at math". 
> In this case the fools don't seem to be throwing all that many dollars away 
> (at least not per document). 

What worries me is what they intend doing with the copy of RFC 793.

If some rule requires taking all references and placing them in a booklet that 
no-one looks at,
then it is OK for them to pay reasonable copying and distribution costs to 
someone willing to print the RFC for them.

However, what if they send the RFC to some programmer who has never heard of 
TCP/IP
and ask him to implement solely based on this referenced document ?

In that case the costs may be somewhat larger ...

Y(J)S

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:47:23PM +0200,
 Harald Alvestrand  wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> In the case of Google Scholar, I found the guidelines to be a bit
> intimidating:
> 
> http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html

But the reality is far from it. Google Scholar actually indexes a lot
of things which are not scholarly. Type "sql" in Google Scholar and
see the first result.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John R. Levine]

  (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and its publishing 
partners.

Unless I am mistaken, RFCs aren't IEEE publications.


Indeed they aren't but "publishing partners" offers a lot of leeway.

Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Florian Weimer]

* Bob Braden:

> Now, it has always been IETF's (and even before there was an IETF,
> Jon Postel's) policy to allow people to sell RFCs. What astonishes
> me is that clever people in the IEEE don't know RFCs are available
> free online. I guess RFCs remain so counter-cultural that industrial
> types don't get it. I wonder how many other IEEE standards contain
> similar RFC-for-pay references..

A lot of the stuff IEEE publishes for a fee is freely and legally
available from other sources (without the official IEEE imprint, of
course).  IEEE performs extensive search engine optimization (aka
Google spamming) to get their for-pay content rated over the free
content.  I suppose this is required because otherwise, library access
statistics would plummet and libraries would cancel their
subscriptions. *sigh*

(Same for ACM, Springer, and so one, of course.)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Steven Bellovin]

On May 10, 2011, at 5:22 43PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Bob Braden wrote:
> 
>> I wonder how many other IEEE standards contain similar
>> RFC-for-pay references..
> 
> It's common (much more than 50% for academic ones, IMHO) that
> sold articles are freely available on-line.
> 
> For example, a PDF file of the paper "End-to-end arguments in
> system design" can be purchased for $15 from:
> 
>   http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1145/357401.357402
> 
> which is the first link appears in google scholar search with
> the paper title, or, from:
> 
>   http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=357401.357402
> 
> to which the above IEEE link is redirected, but is available
> free of charge from:
> 
>   http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf
> 
> which is the second link (next to google scholar one) with plain
> google search.
> 
> It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
> versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
> to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.

Unfortunately, the IEEE has tightened its copyright policy; see
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/paperversionpolicy.html
for details.


--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Joe Touch]

Paradoxically, I-Ds do already include a similar statement:

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Pity we don't include that sort of thing in the RFCs too...

Joe

On 5/9/2011 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:

A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the boilerplate of 
every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online from ..."

The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement.  If 
someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to 
pay $47 again.

Steve

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[SM]

Hi Joe,
At 17:05 11-05-2011, Joe Touch wrote:

Paradoxically, I-Ds do already include a similar statement:

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Pity we don't include that sort of thing in the RFCs too...


From the "Status of This Memo" section of RFC 5741:

  "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5741.";

Regards,
-sm

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 16:43 -0400 Steven Bellovin
 wrote:

>> It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
>> versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
>> to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, the IEEE has tightened its copyright policy; see
> http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights
> /paperversionpolicy.html for details.

Steve,

It seems to me that this policy applies to documents published
by the IEEE and that it has no direct effect on IETF (or RFC
Editor)-published documents.  Interestingly, it is also very
similar to a generally-understood historical version of the
policy wrt RFCs at least before the IETF community started
practicing "amateur lawyer":  I-Ds and other prepublication
documents basically belong to the authors and they can do with
them as they like (the IETF Trust is now insisting on attaching
copyright notices to I-Ds; let's not start another debate about
the legitimacy of that practice).  By contrast, RFCs involve
some value-added by the RFC Editor, copyright assertions have
been made for a decade or two, and "we" have tried to control
derivative publications.  

The main difference is also familiar: the IETF wants to limit
reproduction permission for published versions (presumably to
continue to make money on them to offset other expenses) while
we permit unlimited distribution and reproduction without
special permission as long as the documents are intact or meet
specific other criteria.   A second difference is that we've
never asked folks to go find online versions of I-Ds and update
them to point explicitly to the successor RFCs.  I have no idea
how one actually does that or enforces it but, in principle, it
is an idea we might actually find it beneficial to consider.
Finally, the IEEE insists on formal copyright transfer at a
well-defined point (and, as far as I know, always has).  "We"
don't think we need that.

best,
   john

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Steven Bellovin]

On May 12, 2011, at 10:41 58AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 16:43 -0400 Steven Bellovin
>  wrote:
> 
>>> It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
>>> versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
>>> to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the IEEE has tightened its copyright policy; see
>> http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights
>> /paperversionpolicy.html for details.
> 
> Steve,
> 
> It seems to me that this policy applies to documents published
> by the IEEE and that it has no direct effect on IETF (or RFC
> Editor)-published documents.

My comment was in reply to Masataka Ohta's note saying that he
often evades the pricing on things like IEEE or ACM pappers
by finding free ones online.  That looks like it won't be possible
going forward.


--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Joe Touch]

On 5/11/2011 10:17 PM, SM wrote:

Hi Joe,
At 17:05 11-05-2011, Joe Touch wrote:

Paradoxically, I-Ds do already include a similar statement:

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Pity we don't include that sort of thing in the RFCs too...


 From the "Status of This Memo" section of RFC 5741:

"Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5741.";

Regards,
-sm


Sure - but you get to that link only from the rfc-editor.org site, at 
which point you've probably already gotten the free RFCs.


What's missing is this sort of statement - more specifically, a pointer 
to the rfc-editor.org copy of the *doc* (not just info on the doc) 
within the doc itself.


Joe
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Joe Touch]

On 5/12/2011 7:58 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:


On May 12, 2011, at 10:41 58AM, John C Klensin wrote:


--On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 16:43 -0400 Steven Bellovin
  wrote:


It is a lot more time (and money) saving to search free
versions before entering transactions to purchase them than
to rely blindly on PubMed, IEEE, ACM, google scholar etc.


Unfortunately, the IEEE has tightened its copyright policy; see
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights
/paperversionpolicy.html for details.


Steve,

It seems to me that this policy applies to documents published
by the IEEE and that it has no direct effect on IETF (or RFC
Editor)-published documents.


My comment was in reply to Masataka Ohta's note saying that he
often evades the pricing on things like IEEE or ACM pappers
by finding free ones online.  That looks like it won't be possible
going forward.


Current IEEE policy continues to allow authors to post the latest update 
prior to IEEE publication on their home site, with proper copyright 
notice and a link to the IEEE copy.


I.e., authors can currently post the last revision before IEEE 
formatting with IEEE logos for free.


Joe (as IEEE TCCC Chair)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Bob Hinden]

John,

> 
> The main difference is also familiar: the IETF wants to limit
> reproduction permission for published versions (presumably to
> continue to make money on them to offset other expenses) while
> we permit unlimited distribution and reproduction without
> special permission as long as the documents are intact or meet
> specific other criteria.  

Did you mean to say IEEE above?  

Bob



> A second difference is that we've
> never asked folks to go find online versions of I-Ds and update
> them to point explicitly to the successor RFCs.  I have no idea
> how one actually does that or enforces it but, in principle, it
> is an idea we might actually find it beneficial to consider.
> Finally, the IEEE insists on formal copyright transfer at a
> well-defined point (and, as far as I know, always has).  "We"
> don't think we need that.
> 
> best,
>   john
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, May 12, 2011 08:50 -0700 Joe Touch
 wrote:

>> My comment was in reply to Masataka Ohta's note saying that he
>> often evades the pricing on things like IEEE or ACM pappers
>> by finding free ones online.  That looks like it won't be
>> possible going forward.
> 
> Current IEEE policy continues to allow authors to post the
> latest update prior to IEEE publication on their home site,
> with proper copyright notice and a link to the IEEE copy.
> 
> I.e., authors can currently post the last revision before IEEE
> formatting with IEEE logos for free.

Joe,

A different version of the point I was trying to make is that
any body that depends on publication revenues, special
subscriptions, or memberships and membership privileges to
support its work has to define a boundary that preserves some
value in those revenue sources.  Some of us may think that they
are going to need to find a new business model for their
activities, but that is really irrelevant to the present
conversation.  

It seems to me that the line IEEE is trying to draw is a
reasonable one given their problem and, modulo trying to
preserve something for which to charge, not that much different
from ours.  In many situations, the net effect is that, if I'm
interested in the content or substance of a given article, the
"approved submission" version should be more than sufficient.
If I need to quote exactly from it, reference material by page
number, etc., I need to get my hands on the final published
version and someone may have to pay IEEE for that.

Other than being careful about what versions of IEEE documents
are referenced normatively in RFCs (so that people are expected
to read and understand the referenced documents to implement the
RFC), it still doesn't seem to me that IEEE's policies, or what
documents can be found where and at what prices, are an IETF
problem.

   john


john

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Florian Weimer]

* Steve Crocker:

> A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in
> the boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of
> charge online from ..."
>
> The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this
> statement.  If someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this
> statement, he is unlikely to pay $47 again.

As far as I understand it, IEEE, ACM and the others need the search
engine hits from library PCs.  Libraries are their primary customer
base.  To the patron, it does not really matter what the document says
because it appears to be free anyway.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Bob Hinden]

Steve,

On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:

> A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the 
> boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online 
> from ..."
> 
> The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement.  If 
> someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to 
> pay $47 again.
> 

I wonder how they came up with $47?  

It is such a nice prime number.  See:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_(number)

I recommend reading it.  I never knew that a number could be so interesting.

Bob

p.s. Maybe this can be the end of this thread...




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Steve Crocker]

Bob,

Thanks!  I had always thought 47 was an uninteresting number.  I wasn't sure if 
it was the least uninteresting number, and if it were, it would automatically 
be interesting(*), but now I see it's interesting even if it's not the least 
uninteresting number :)

Steve

* For those on this list not familiar with math jokes, there's a "proof" there 
are no uninteresting numbers: Suppose some (positive) integers are interesting 
and the rest are uninteresting.  Consider the least of the uninteresting 
numbers.  That's surely an interesting number...



On May 12, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> 
>> A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the 
>> boilerplate of every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge 
>> online from ..."
>> 
>> The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement.  If 
>> someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to 
>> pay $47 again.
>> 
> 
> I wonder how they came up with $47?  
> 
> It is such a nice prime number.  See:
> 
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_(number)
> 
> I recommend reading it.  I never knew that a number could be so interesting.
> 
> Bob
> 
> p.s. Maybe this can be the end of this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: How to pay $47 for a copy of RFC 793

[Julian Reschke]

On 12.05.2011 23:09, Bob Hinden wrote:

Steve,

On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:


A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the boilerplate of 
every RFC that says, "RFCs are available free of charge online from ..."

The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement.  If 
someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he is unlikely to 
pay $47 again.



I wonder how they came up with $47?

It is such a nice prime number.  See:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_(number)

I recommend reading it.  I never knew that a number could be so interesting.
...


"47 (forty-seven) is the natural number following 46 and preceding 48."

Wow.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf