> >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. AVT's chair just stepped down after 10 years of service (thanks, Colin!), so it is definitely not impossible. If a WG draft is getting picked up with largely the same content and new editors, there is no need for a new declaration. If there is a change, there is always a risk that the old declaration is still present but no longer applies; our system relies on the person making the IPR declaration to notice this and do something about it. Alternatively, the person *reading* the notice can follow the link to the claimed IPR and decide for themselves whether they believe it or not. >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. This doesn't worry me a lot, as it would have to be a combination of the same name, topic, and probably wg name. There are possibilities for issues here, but those sharing the same name working in the IETF on the same issues seem to have found ways around them (possibly with same assistance from the secretariat I'm not aware of). >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. Here's some of the text from 6.1.1 Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 6. This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably be submitted. An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure. The IPR statement is about the contribution, in other words; the filename is just a way of referencing the contribution for internet drafts. Reading through this, I see that the recommendation that an IPR discloser "withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure" made it into the BCP. Someone else will have to decide if this is already consonant with Paul's suggestion, or whether it would have to be amended. > > 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 regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf