>The problem is that there is no time limit on when the I-D can become an >IETF standard. Someone can pick up a 5 year old I-D and do the work >involved in getting it standardized; I believe our process allows for >that. They pretty much have to write a new I-D though, and, unless it the same authors, the name and details will change (though I'm sure a -5 years after the -4 has happened). In this latter case, I believe a new statement by those willing to license it would be required, so it could be attached to the new draft. Otherwise, someone other than the rights holder is making the determination that the technology in draft-oldauthor-foo-04 and draft-newauthor-foo-00 is the same. I think our process pretty much puts out of that business. I confess to some queasiness already that rights statements in -0(n) remain in force for -0(n+1) when the technology may change between the two, but I think the current system (leaving it up to the rights holder when or if to re-file) is a decent balance. Requiring one on each new version would make us nuts. regards, Ted > If patent disclosures are removed during that time, IETF >participants are denied the possibility to learn about patent >disclosures for the technology. I don't believe that is consistent with >the IETF policy. > >/Simon >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf