Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 Thread Julian Reschke
Harald Alvestrand wrote: ... Hi, I'm trying to understand whether this change affects me. So... 1) Many specs I'm editor of contain ABNF. Does it need to be labeled as code component (I believe not). 2) These specs also collect all ABNF fragments into an appendix, containing the

Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 Thread Julian Reschke
Julian Reschke wrote: ... 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do I need to include the BSD license text? If so, can somebody explain how to do that given the constraints of the ABNF syntax? ... Explanation:

Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 Thread John C Klensin
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: Julian Reschke wrote: ... 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do I need to include the BSD license text? If so, can

Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 Thread Russ Housley
At 08:25 AM 7/20/2009, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: Julian Reschke wrote: ... 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do I need to

Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 Thread John C Klensin
You are correct. I remembered the text differently, but should have checked. I apologize. john --On Monday, July 20, 2009 12:23 -0400 Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: At 08:25 AM 7/20/2009, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke

Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 Thread Harald Alvestrand
Julian Reschke wrote: Harald Alvestrand wrote: ... Hi, I'm trying to understand whether this change affects me. So... 1) Many specs I'm editor of contain ABNF. Does it need to be labeled as code component (I believe not). In my understanding, all ABNF is code by definition (included in

Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 Thread Harald Alvestrand
John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: Julian Reschke wrote: ... 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do I need to include the BSD