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as no longer in effect (with a reason as to why) might be OK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