On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Ted Hardie wrote:
The group can discuss specific IPR issues with proposals before the working
group, but please note that while the IPR forms request that a new IPR
statement be filed for each document, it is widely understood that
successor documents are covered by the statement relating to the original
version. Getting a new one in for each version is busywork, and this
working group has no time for such busywork. Getting a final copy in
before the documents become RFCs can be handled at the appropriate time,
and I am recommend to the working group that they let the chairs follow
up with the editors and those who have filed early statements at that time.
While I agree with you in general, I do believe in our case, new IPR
statement is appropriate. My undersnding is that before Microsoft claimed
IPR rights because of use of XML in DNS TXT records (or was it in dns in
general? I asked that question and was promised detailed answer during
MARID jabber session, but never got it, eventhough Microsoft people
present were directed to work on it). We're no longer considering
use of XML in DNS and will use original SPF syntax, so my understanding
based on previously expressed IPR claims that none should apply to now.
Perhaps I do not understand correctly and Microsoft had other IPR claims
that dod not concern XML, in that case, Microsoft should explain more
clearly and tell exactly what these IPR claims cover and that is why new
statement seems appropriate.
For those of you not familiar with the IETF's IPR declaration site, it
is at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html. The caller-id original
is covered in this document:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/microsoft-ipr-draft-atkinson-callerid.txt
I note that the section V(C) which from that document is which is supposed
to explain which parts of internet draft are covered by IPR is not filled
out by Microsoft nor was there patent# provided under section V(A).
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net