W.r.t.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <iesg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
... snip a lot ..
Specific IPR (e.g., patent claims & terms) must not be in an RFC
The "must" is interesting. What BCP documents this (entirely
reasonable,
IMO) requirement?
Does not point 4 4. Specific IPR (e.g., patent claims & terms) must not
be
in an RFC (or Internet-Draft). Any claims must go to the IETF IPR web
page
and notice that there is some IPR claim. The mandatory IPR Notice from
[RFC3979] (Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology,"
March 2005.) section 5 points readers to the IETF IPR web page. clealry
point
you to the basis (RFC3979) ??? The point was/is that some people put one
specific IPR claim in the RFC. And such is useless, after the RFC is
Bert, once again, I'm not suggesting the guidance is "wrong", but that it
is without substantiation. It asserts a *requirement* that it seems to
have invented.
RFC 3979 says what is to be in an RFC, not what isn't. The Checklist says
what isn't.
The proble we saw in the IESG (when we started ID_Checklist) was that we saw
A LOT OF I-Ds that requested publication and that DID HAVE SPECIFIC IPR
claims. So we wanted to make it clear to people that such is NOT TO BE DONE.
Just saying that RFC3979 text was to be used seemed not to get through!
And so on.
Pls point out all the issues/concerns you have (if you want a personal
email
I did that: Each and every assertion that says or implies anything more
than "it can be helpful to do this" needs to provide a narrow citation for
its basis.
I means "and so on". If there are more, pls point them out.
Bert
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf