something that is being missed in this discussion the old “Note Well” does not do, nor was it intended to do, what people have assumed it did the Note Well was developed, starting in about April 2000, to provide classification on what should be considered a “contribution” to the IETF - at the time there was a lot of confusion - some people thought the 2026 IPR rules only applied to Internet Draft submission and others thought it covered mailing list and microphone statements - the Note Well was developed by me and the then IETF lawyer, Geoff Stewart, with the help of Steve Coya and initially discussed at an IESG retreat. a common feature of the proposed revisions (the IERTF one as well as the IESG ones) is to expand the mission of the Note Well to actually say what you should DO if you have IPR that an IETF working group would be better off knowing about note well that the above is a history lesson for context and should not discus the current discussion thread other than to perhaps forestall a return to the good old Note Well that was not, by itself, actionable Scott On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm concerned that any abbreviated form will inadequately represent > the nuances of the full policy, and that if we create a single uniform > abbreviated version that must be shown at f2f meetings, that opens > loopholes. For example, possibly: "Well, yes I agreed to the Note > Well, but then in the meeting they showed a different version that > didn't cover X. I thought that took precedence." > > There are many ways the full Note Well is dealt with at this time, > most of them good. I don't think you'll get more attention paid to the > IPR policy by showing an abbreviated form. > > Scott
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail