At 6:32 PM -0800 2/20/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >Without forcing me to read all the referenced documents, is there an easy >way to determine whether any IPR disclosures relating to these documents >need to be correlated and disclosed? > >/Larry Rosen > Is the IPR search page, linked off of the IETF web page not working for you? You can search there for draft names or RFC numbers. If you are asking whether it is designed to recursively search all the dependencies in a document as well, the answer is no. We do expect people to read our documents. If you'd like to suggest it to the tools team as a convenience for those who do not, I'm sure they'll consider it. tools-discuss@xxxxxxxx is the right venue for that suggestion. regards, Ted Hardie > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@xxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:35 PM >> To: Julian Reschke >> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions >> forDistributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard >> >> >> On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) >> > in an >> > incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter >> > ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes >> > Appendix. >> > >> > (see <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi? >> > id=258>) >> > >> > Best regards, Julian >> >> >> Sent with my behave chair hat on ... >> >> This is always a complicated problem of does an update document >> update the documents that depend on the drafts it's updates. An >> extreme example is should TLS 1.2 update every document that uses TLS >> 1.0. It's pretty unwieldy to take that path so I I think a better >> path is that 3253 depends on 2518 and when we update 3253, then it >> will be changed to depend on the RFC that comes out of the 2518bis >> draft. >> >> The WG definitely considered the impact of the incompatibilities here >> and decided that this was an acceptable path - the only question we >> are trying to sort out here is if the id tracker shows this an up >> update on 3253 or not. >> >> Cullen >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf