On Dec 8, 2010, at 3:57 AM, Samir Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If a link is referred within the draft being submitted to IETF has link to
> other web-site as a reference for other work (such as wikipedia), does IETF
> require the copyright for that referred stuff also.
>
Dear Samir;
The
I would not consider that a link to Wikipedia is ever appropriate in an
IETF draft. If it were, then an exact date and time would need to be
included in the reference, but I'd be unhappy even with that. (This is
not for copyright reasons.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications
On 14.12.2010 10:57, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I would not consider that a link to Wikipedia is ever appropriate in an
IETF draft. If it were, then an exact date and time would need to be
included in the reference, but I'd be unhappy even with that. (This is
not for copyright reasons.)
..
Julian Reschke writes:
> On 14.12.2010 10:57, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>> I would not consider that a link to Wikipedia is ever appropriate in an
>> IETF draft. If it were, then an exact date and time would need to be
>> included in the reference, but I'd be unhappy even with that. (This
7
-Original Message-
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de]
Sent: 14 December 2010 10:28
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Samir Srivastava; Ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Clarification for Copyright to referred material in IETF
draft
*** WARNING ***
T
> There is a bunch of RFCs with references to Wikipedia:
I can only disagree with the practice.
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
re
"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" writes:
> Without a date and time, a link to Wikipedia is to something
> that anyone could change, at any time, to anything. (Unless
> locked, but that's unlikely to be the case here.)
A link to any external site is to something that _someone_ could change,
at any ti
s No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:si...@josefsson.org]
Sent: 14 December 2010 10:54
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Julian Reschke; Ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Clarification for Copyright to referred material in IETF
draft
*** WAR
Dearlove, Christopher wrote:
>
> Most links are to something someone - if a good source a known someone
> - could change. A Wikipedia link is to something anyone can change.
I think Wikipedia Articles make very good _informational_ references,
and in particular because _anyone_ can change them!
> From: Simon Josefsson
> Wikipedia has .. stable URLs, which makes it on par or better than
> other external references.
That's a sad truth - I find link-rot is an incredible problem with references
when I'm looking at older material; stuff seems to go offline all the time,
even val
Martin Rex wrote:
Dearlove, Christopher wrote:
Most links are to something someone - if a good source a known
someone - could change. A Wikipedia link is to something anyone can
change.
I think Wikipedia Articles make very good _informational_ references,
and in particular because _anyone_
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:53:33AM +0100,
Simon Josefsson wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
> External references always comes with the price of creating obsolete
> or incorrect links.
Some organisations, like the RFC Editor, provide stable references to
things that never change. Same t
, December 14, 2010 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Clarification for Copyright to referred material in IETF draft
> From: Simon Josefsson
> Wikipedia has .. stable URLs, which makes it on par or better than
> other external references.
That's a sad truth - I find link-rot is an
On Dec 14, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Simon Josefsson
>
>> Wikipedia has .. stable URLs, which makes it on par or better than
>> other external references.
>
> That's a sad truth - I find link-rot is an incredible problem with references
> when I'm looking at older material
Hi Julian,
At 02:28 14-12-10, Julian Reschke wrote:
Out of curiosity, and because there may be drafts in the pipeline
having links like that...: for which reasons?
This question would have been better suited for the RFC Editor (see
RFC-interest mailing list) as it pertains to RFC style.
Quot
[Soapbox warning]
I love it! Finally a use for Informational RFC's that I get: Let's turn
Wikipedia pages into RFC's!
[NOT]
On Dec 14, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>>> From: Simon Josefsson
>>
>>> Wikipedia has .. stable UR
SM wrote:
> Quoting Doug Ewell [1]:
>
>"I thought it would be good to let the list know that these
> misconceptions exist and may be widespread, because of the wide
> use of Wikipedia"
I like Wikipedia and usually find its articles to be accurate. The
article on BCP 47 language tag
On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> SM wrote:
>
>> Quoting Doug Ewell [1]:
>>
>> "I thought it would be good to let the list know that these
>>misconceptions exist and may be widespread, because of the wide
>>use of Wikipedia"
>
> I like Wikipedia and usually find its
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The problem I have with this is not the content (presumably the author
of the I-D is vouching for any references they use), it's that the
content can change at any time.
Hi Marshall. Mediawiki (the software behind Wikipedia and a lot of other
sit
On Dec 14, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>> The problem I have with this is not the content (presumably the author of
>> the I-D is vouching for any references they use), it's that the content can
>> change at any time.
>
> Hi Marsha
20 matches
Mail list logo
