Hi, On 2014-2-7, at 16:16, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/7/2014 12:05 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: >> Exactly. The new text does not address the issue. >> >> Lars >> >> PS: I'll again point to the IRTF statement, which does:http://irtf.org/ipr. We'll make it available to the IETF for the low, low price of a round of beers for the IRSG:-) > > 1. Has the text been vetted by the IETF's attorney? yes. > 2. How does this 'summary' avoid the danger that has been cited, of providing a potential ambiguity argument through exploitation of any differences between the summary source text? Not sure how to answer that, other than saying that Jorge was OK with it? (It does point at the BCP for the detailed rules.) > 3. How does any of this resolve the much deeper problem that this lengthy thread has served to demonstrate that we very clearly have extensive community confusion about on what the current IPR rules are or mean? It doesn't - that's a much broader question, which I agree we need to somehow tackle. Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail