oops - reviewing my logs, it was Jorge Contreras not Geoff Stewart, and John Klensin was part of the initial (to blame) group Scott On Feb 7, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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