On Aug 19, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it seems to be a real bad idea to let people actually remove any type of IPR statement that might have been relied upon by a WG in any way and since its hard to figure out if thats the case, it seems like a real bad idea to let someone remove a IPR statement at all having a way for someone (properly verified) to mark the statement as no longer in effect (with a reason as to why) might be OK except that I find it hard to see why the IETF would want to make it easier for an IPR holder to mislead a WG on the IPR holder's intentions ('you can have it' 'oops, I did not mean that') there could be a real issue if someone who did not have the authority to do so committed a IPR holder to specific IPR terms (like free) but that seems to be a problem for the IPR holder to deal with internally since I'm far from sure what the legal precident is for that sort of thing
These reasons (as well as Stephan's) are why I do not support any removal of
disclosures once posted, except under a court order. Again, I view an initial verification of disclosures before posting as a different matter. Regards Marshall
Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf