Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>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. For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired WG document years later doesn't seem entirely unlikely. However, strictly speaking, I don't believe the filename is a useful unique identifier. For example, two authors could have the same name, resulting in draft filename re-use years later. Having an old patent disclosures apply if the new authors have the same name as the old authors, and the old patent disclosure not apply if the new authors have different names as the old authors, seems silly. The filenames aren't what is important. I believe it is more appropriate that patent disclosures are related to the _content_ of a specific draft, rather than to its filename. If you think about it this way, it doesn't matter whether the filename is changed or not. My reading of RFC 3979 suggests this is what the policy actually says. I'm curious if you or anyone has another interpretation. > 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. Indeed. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf