13. Intellectual Property Rights
[The following are taken from RFC 2026. It is not entirely clear whether
all of this is necessary at this stage. Please can someone explain it to
me?]
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Appendix A.1 - A-News Article Format
The obsolete "A News" article format consisted of exactly five lines
of header information, followed by the body. For example:
Aeagle.642
news.misc
cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry
Fri Nov 19 16:14:55 1982
Usenet Etiquette - Please Read
body
body
body
The first line consisted of an "A" followed by an article ID
(analogous to a message ID and used for similar purposes). The
second line was the list of newsgroups. The third line was the path.
The fourth was the date, in the format above (all fields fixed
width), resembling an Internet date but not quite the same. The fifth
was the subject.
This format is documented for archeological purposes only. Articles
MUST NOT be generated in this format.
Appendix A.2 - Early B-News Article Format
The obsolete pseudo-Internet article format, used briefly during the
transition between the A News format and the modern format, followed
the general outline of a MAIL message but with some non-standard
headers. For example:
From: cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Title: Usenet Etiquette -- Please Read
Article-I.D.: eagle.642
Posted: Fri Nov 19 16:14:55 1982
Received: Fri Nov 19 16:59:30 1982
Expires: Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1990
body
body
body
The From header contained the information now found in the Path
header, plus possibly the full name now typically found in the From
header. The Title header contained what is now the Subject content.
The Posted header contained what is now the Date content. The
Article-I.D. header contained an article ID, analogous to a message
ID and used for similar purposes. The Newsgroups and Expires headers
were approximately as now. The Received header contained the date
when the latest relayer to process the article first saw it. All
dates were in the above format, with all fields fixed width,
resembling an Internet date but not quite the same.
This format is documented for archeological purposes only. Articles
MUST NOT be generated in this format.
Appendix A.3 - Obsolete Headers
Early versions of news software following the modern format sometimes
generated headers like the following:
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 2/13/83; site cbosgd.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 2/13/83; site eagle.UUCP
Date-Received: Friday, 19-Nov-82 16:59:30 EST
Relay-Version contained version information about the relayer that
last processed the article. Posting-Version contained version
information about the posting agent that posted the article. Date-
Received contained the date when the last relayer to process the
article first saw it (in a slightly nonstandard format).
In addition, this present standard obsoletes certain headers defined
in [Son-of-1036] (see 6.22):
Also-Control: cancel <9urrt98y53@site.example>
See-Also: <i4g587y@site1.example> <kgb2231+ee@site2.example>
Article-Names: comp.foo:charter
Article-Updates: <i4g587y@site1.example>
Also-Control indicated a control message that was also intended to be
filed as a normal article. See-Also listed related articles, but
without the specfic relationship with followups that pertains to the
References header. Article-Names indicated some special significance
of that article in relation to the indicated newsgroup. Article-
Updates indicated that an earlier article was updated, without at the
same time being superseded.
These headers are documented for archeological purposes only.
Articles containing these headers MUST NOT be generated.
Appendix A.4 - Obsolete Control Messages
This present standard obsoletes certain control messages defined in
[RFC 1036] (see 7.7), all of which had the effect of requesting a
description of a relaying or serving agent's software, or its peering
arrangements with neighbouring sites, to be emailed to the article's
reply address. Whilst of some utility when Usenet was much smaller
than it is now, they had become no more than a tool for the malicious
sending of mailbombs. Moreover, many organizations now consider
information about their internal connectivity to be confidential.
version
sendsys
whogets
senduuname
"Version" requested details of the transport software in use at a
site. "Sendsys" requested the full list of newsgroups taken, and the
peering arrangements. "Who gets" was similar, but restricted to a
named newsgroup. "Senduuname" resembled "sendsys" but restricted to
the list of peers connected by UUCP.
Historically, a checkgroups body consisting of one or two lines, the
first of the form "-n newsgroup", caused check-groups to apply to
only that single newsgroup.
Historically, an article posted to a newsgroup whose name had exactly
three components of which the third was "ctl" signified that article
was to be taken as a control message. The Subject header specified
the actions, in the same way the Control header does now.
These forms are documented for archeological purposes only; they MUST
NO LONGER be used.
Appendix B - Collected Syntax
TO BE DONE
[< Prev]
[TOC] | Newer | Older |
|---|---|
| News Article Format November 2001 News Article Format July 2001 | News Article Format February 2000 |
--- ../usefor-article-03/Intellectual_Property_Rights.out February 2000
+++ ../usefor-article-04/Intellectual_Property_Rights.out April 2001
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
[The following are taken from RFC 2026. It is not entirely clear whether
all of this is necessary at this stage. Please can someone explain it to
me?]
-
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
@@ -52,17 +51,126 @@
Appendix A.1 - A-News Article Format
-[There is some text present in Son-of-1036 at this point which may well
-be removed to a separate informational RFC giving a proper historical
-background.]
+ The obsolete "A News" article format consisted of exactly five lines
+ of header information, followed by the body. For example:
+ Aeagle.642
+ news.misc
+ cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry
+ Fri Nov 19 16:14:55 1982
+ Usenet Etiquette - Please Read
+ body
+ body
+ body
+
+ The first line consisted of an "A" followed by an article ID
+ (analogous to a message ID and used for similar purposes). The
+ second line was the list of newsgroups. The third line was the path.
+ The fourth was the date, in the format above (all fields fixed
+ width), resembling an Internet date but not quite the same. The fifth
+ was the subject.
+
+ This format is documented for archeological purposes only. Articles
+ MUST NOT be generated in this format.
Appendix A.2 - Early B-News Article Format
-[The same applies to this.]
+ The obsolete pseudo-Internet article format, used briefly during the
+ transition between the A News format and the modern format, followed
+ the general outline of a MAIL message but with some non-standard
+ headers. For example:
+
+ From: cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry (Jerry Schwarz)
+ Newsgroups: news.misc
+ Title: Usenet Etiquette -- Please Read
+ Article-I.D.: eagle.642
+ Posted: Fri Nov 19 16:14:55 1982
+ Received: Fri Nov 19 16:59:30 1982
+ Expires: Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1990
+
+ body
+ body
+ body
+
+ The From header contained the information now found in the Path
+ header, plus possibly the full name now typically found in the From
+ header. The Title header contained what is now the Subject content.
+ The Posted header contained what is now the Date content. The
+ Article-I.D. header contained an article ID, analogous to a message
+ ID and used for similar purposes. The Newsgroups and Expires headers
+ were approximately as now. The Received header contained the date
+ when the latest relayer to process the article first saw it. All
+ dates were in the above format, with all fields fixed width,
+ resembling an Internet date but not quite the same.
+
+ This format is documented for archeological purposes only. Articles
+ MUST NOT be generated in this format.
+Appendix A.3 - Obsolete Headers
+
+ Early versions of news software following the modern format sometimes
+ generated headers like the following:
+
+ Relay-Version: version B 2.10 2/13/83; site cbosgd.UUCP
+ Posting-Version: version B 2.10 2/13/83; site eagle.UUCP
+ Date-Received: Friday, 19-Nov-82 16:59:30 EST
+
+ Relay-Version contained version information about the relayer that
+ last processed the article. Posting-Version contained version
+ information about the posting agent that posted the article. Date-
+ Received contained the date when the last relayer to process the
+ article first saw it (in a slightly nonstandard format).
+
+ In addition, this present standard obsoletes certain headers defined
+ in [Son-of-1036] (see 6.22):
+
+ Also-Control: cancel <9urrt98y53@site.example>
+ See-Also: <i4g587y@site1.example> <kgb2231+ee@site2.example>
+ Article-Names: comp.foo:charter
+ Article-Updates: <i4g587y@site1.example>
+
+ Also-Control indicated a control message that was also intended to be
+ filed as a normal article. See-Also listed related articles, but
+ without the specfic relationship with followups that pertains to the
+ References header. Article-Names indicated some special significance
+ of that article in relation to the indicated newsgroup. Article-
+ Updates indicated that an earlier article was updated, without at the
+ same time being superseded.
+
+ These headers are documented for archeological purposes only.
+ Articles containing these headers MUST NOT be generated.
+
+Appendix A.4 - Obsolete Control Messages
+
+ This present standard obsoletes certain control messages defined in
+ [RFC 1036] (see 7.7), all of which had the effect of requesting a
+ description of a relaying or serving agent's software, or its peering
+ arrangements with neighbouring sites, to be emailed to the article's
+ reply address. Whilst of some utility when Usenet was much smaller
+ than it is now, they had become no more than a tool for the malicious
+ sending of mailbombs. Moreover, many organizations now consider
+ information about their internal connectivity to be confidential.
+
+ version
+ sendsys
+ whogets
+ senduuname
+
+ "Version" requested details of the transport software in use at a
+ site. "Sendsys" requested the full list of newsgroups taken, and the
+ peering arrangements. "Who gets" was similar, but restricted to a
+ named newsgroup. "Senduuname" resembled "sendsys" but restricted to
+ the list of peers connected by UUCP.
+
+ Historically, a checkgroups body consisting of one or two lines, the
+ first of the form "-n newsgroup", caused check-groups to apply to
+ only that single newsgroup.
+
+ Historically, an article posted to a newsgroup whose name had exactly
+ three components of which the third was "ctl" signified that article
+ was to be taken as a control message. The Subject header specified
+ the actions, in the same way the Control header does now.
-[Son-of-1036 also had appendices on "Obsolete Headers" and "Obsolete
-Control Messages". Do we want these? There are already mentioned at
-appropriate places in the draft.]
+ These forms are documented for archeological purposes only; they MUST
+ NO LONGER be used.
Appendix B - Collected Syntax