Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a little more "nuanced", for example you don't have to disclose until it looks like your idea is going to be incorporated in something headed towards standards track, but generally I think what you describe is how things work now. swb On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 05:49:10AM +0000, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote: > somebody asked me... > > > What is your position on these issues then? > > i think that anyone who comments on the mailing list, or in WG meeting > minutes, or as a draft author, should have to disclose any relevant IPR > of which they are then aware or of which they become subsequently aware, > whether or not such awareness is due to prospective benefit by them, or > their employers, or their heirs or assigns. i also think contributors > to ietf specifications, whether verbally, or in e-mail forums, or as > authors, should have to quit-claim any relevant IPR except that which > they have disclosed in advance of a draft being submitted to the RFC > editor. > > i think that the ensuing ietf-isoc-malamud hairball should pay for IPR > searches of all final-drafts before they reach the RFC editor, to get some > kind of reasonable belief that all relevant IPR has in fact been disclosed, > even though no warranties as to IPR should be expressed or implied. > > if working groups want a standard to use protected IPR, their only > responsibility is to ensure that all IPR claims are properly disclosed. > > if implementors want to build products on a standard that uses protected > IPR, they should be able to read the IPR legend in the RFC and make an > informed business decision as to whether they like what they see. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf