At 11:42 AM 6/22/2011, Scott Brim wrote: >On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:11, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> A quick couple of questions to the list based on a document I saw recently. >> >> If a document (an ID in this case) contains encumbered material (in this case consists of 90%+ encumbered material), and the document is authored by the organization (or members of the organization) that holds the encumbrance, should the document contain an IPR disclosure itself or is it sufficient to submit a IPR disclosure through the IETF web interface? > >IPR statements are never put in RFCs unless on occasion they are >informational transplants from outside. The IPR claims or other >aspects might change over time and the right place to track all that >is in the IPR disclosures. Hmm.. even though this was labeled like a normal run of the mill ID, it really was an informational transfer from the outside - at least at this point in the process. I.e. - single corporate author, long held IPR as opposed to "here's something brand new and never seen before and while parts of it may derive from work from company A, this use of it is new and people from company B and C are figuring out new ways to work with it." I think tracking disclosures via the IPR system is reasonable for most documents, but something like "This document consists primarily of intellectual property claimed to owned by xxxx. Please consult the IETF disclosures section for the current terms and conditions for this IPR." may be useful. It's pretty hard to tell from any given document whether or not consulting the IPR disclosures is useful or somewhat necessary. Not a big problem, I guess, but somewhat dissonant to the process. Mike _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf