Subject: RE: Acronims' ambiquity

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:01:42 -0500

Hi,
Just a comment about Salva's suggestion about the type of document/e-mail
he'd prefer about the abundance of hyperlinks in the text. Actually, I have
come across a web-site called Flyswatter.com which does (I believe) quite
what he suggests. I have seen Flyswatter integrated into the Neoplanet
browser and when a document is brought up on the browser, Flyswatter peppers
the document with lots of hyperlinks to more details of various words in the
document. Of course, it is mainly used for non-technical documents and so
may not have definitions of words used in the IETF community.
Just a thought!

-Srinivas

-----Original Message-----
From: EXT Salvador Vidal [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:38 AM
To: salavat
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acronims' ambiquity

Hello,

At 12:05 01/06/00 +0100, Salavat R. Magazov wrote:
>Hello
>
>I am a bit confused by the acronims used in IETF drafts, e.g. in >some
places...

IETF works and discussions formats are very important not only because the
task but also because it can serves as guide to other technicals
discusions, so they can adapt IETF way to their fields.

So just as an example I write what format I like:
I want hypertext anywhere, by anywhere I mean anywhere, not only where the
author puts it, but in any single word, picture ... and in any draft,
e-mail or whatever.
More, I want oriented (multiple) hiperlinks, sometimes you click in an idea
because you don´t understand it asking for an explanation, others you want
to get deep in this idea asking for more arguments or examples about it,
others you are esceptical and you want critics about it ..., so perhaps
someone will foresee a kind of metahiperlink as way to explain why I click
there and drive me to the apropiate hiperlink, with this I will have
sensitive case hiperlinks to:

-The hiperlink that the author creates, as usual.

-A link to a search engine with word wich I click and the context of this
word as arguments.

-Links created by other people (not the author) to their interpretations,
critize.. of the work, scientific spirit not only acept critics but impulse
them, I think that an author that acept that others put links in his work
probes his scientific spirit, but one thing is impulse critics and other to
see your work full of links to porn sites, so I think that the owner of the
information has the right to stop abuse of this, the information owner not
necesary means the author, i.e.: I think that the works and discusions at
IETF are property of IETF, so must follow the rules of IEFT, I mean the
rules that IEFT people want to follow not what the IEFT liders say but this
other history...

-A link to my local dictionary, of course I need them to complete my
diccionary with the IEFT one, I think IEFT dictionary is a group work so
people must introduce the new words on it when they create them, but this
need a moderator that say: Hey Salva diccionary is not a new word, Helsinky
is not a new city,..., please learn orthography before new words
introduction!. 

-...

Best Regards,
Salva

>Regards
>Salavat R. Magazov

---

From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:32:31 -0000

->-----Original Message-----
->From: Salvador Vidal [mailto:[email-masked]]
->Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:38 PM
->To: salavat
->Cc: [email-masked]
->Subject: Re: Acronims' ambiquity
->

->the owner of the
->information has the right to stop abuse of this, the 
->information owner not
->necesary means the author, i.e.: I think that the works and 
->discusions at
->IETF are property of IETF, so must follow the rules of IEFT, 

the IETF's RFC/BCP's etc etc are the property of ISOC. 

/pd

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:03:43 -0400 (EDT)

> the IETF's RFC/BCP's etc etc are the property of ISOC.

this is more than a bit simplistic

the ISOC holds a copyright license on RFCs that permit them to be
published and freely copied and, in most cases, the right for derivative
works within the IETF standards process - the authoirs retain all other
rights including the basic copyright

Scott

---

From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:50:31 -0000

Scott,

->-----Original Message-----
->From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
->Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:04 PM
->To: [email-masked]
->Subject: RE: Acronims' ambiquity 
->
->
->
->> the IETF's RFC/BCP's etc etc are the property of ISOC.
->
->this is more than a bit simplistic
->
->the ISOC holds a copyright license on RFCs that permit them to be
->published and freely copied and, in most cases, the right for 
->derivative
->works within the IETF standards process - the authoirs retain 
->all other
->rights including the basic copyright
->
->Scott
->
This is interesting... a couple of weeks ago
I remember a thread of Pete Loshin's saying 
something about a 10 series release of various RFC's.
does this imply (if I understand you correctly)
that royalty payments (on such publications)
are made to both Authors/ISOC ??

Pete, <or anyone>, clarifications/ comment's please. 

/pd

---

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:06:47 -0400

> From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[email-masked]>

    >> published and freely copied

    > does this imply (if I understand you correctly) that royalty payments
    > (on such publications) are made to both Authors/ISOC ??

Perhaps you overlooked the phrase "freely copied".

	Noel