Talk:Internet Group Management Protocol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand, and needs attention from an expert on its subject. Please expand it to make it accessible to non-experts, without removing the technical details. |
From Talk:Internet group management protocol:
This article should be merged into Internet Group Management Protocol. BenRG 19:01, 7 Oct 2003
This page appears to be bolted together from bits of RFCs.
This appears to be OK, given the terms of the RFC copyright, a copy of which is here. Here is the appropriate paragraph:
- 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 implementation 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.
They also require acknowledgment. Is this GFDL-compatible?
This license is not GFDL-compatible, or Free at all; it limits the types of derivative works that may be created. Furthermore, many of the RFCs are under a different, even more restrictive license: "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."; that "license" does not allow modification of any kind.
However, I think it should be discussed here. The Anome
All licensing aside, I think it looks horrendous and isn't very reader-friendly. --Fylke
I agree with Fylke: I could just as well read the RFCs. A wikipedia article should provide an overview, not be 2nd level documentation for an RFC. -- Ralph
I just tagged the article with {{technical}}. I agree it needs a more general description rather than excerpts from RFCs. -- Hawaiian717 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Changed tag to
|
|
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand, and needs attention from an expert on its subject. Please expand it to make it accessible to non-experts, without removing the technical details. |
as it has not been looked at seriously and I don't understand anything after about the 3rd sentence. Davidkinnen 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
the article needs a section about IGMP Snooping —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.136.19 (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2006
[edit] Deleted
I have deleted the vast majority of this article on the basis of it being a blatant copyright violation (bolted together RFCs). The RFC license is not GFDL compatible. ed g2s • talk 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely a description of the IGMP header information and fields isn't copyright?! This info is given my the majority of packet articles (e.g ipv4), so it would be useful to see that info here also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.111.105 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
