Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>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. Right, but that assumes the disclosure is still around at that time. This part of the thread started with arguments from Stephan that it should be allowed to remove disclosures. I'm trying to provide arguments for keeping disclosures around indefinitely. You appears to assume this, and if most people already agree with that, I don't think we need to discuss this aspect further. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf