On 2008-08-16 06:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:37 PM -0400 8/15/08, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
>> In general, not a bad approach. However, does a valid amendment include
>> the statement "this IPR declaration is now null and void, since the
>> technology did not make it into the targeted standard"? This would
>> resolve the issue of having IPR declarations just hanging out there, for
>> technology that never made it into a standard.
>
> Sure. An amendment is an amendment. A following amendment that says "er,
> ignore that last amendment, the original IPR statement is still in
> force, and the guy who sent that has been moved to our rendering plant"
> is also valid.
Exactly. Keep the trail of breadcrumbs, and leave any dispute
resolution strictly outside the IETF.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf