The problem is that there is no time limit on when the I-D can become an
IETF standard. Someone can pick up a 5 year old I-D and do the work
involved in getting it standardized; I believe our process allows for
that.
They pretty much have to write a new I-D though, and, unless it the
same authors, the name and details will change (though I'm
sure a -5 years after the -4 has happened). In this latter case,
I believe a new statement by those willing to license it would be
required, so it could be attached to the new draft. Otherwise,
someone other than the rights holder is making the determination
that the technology in draft-oldauthor-foo-04 and draft-newauthor-foo-00
is the same. I think our process pretty much puts out of that business.
I confess to some queasiness already that rights statements in
-0(n) remain in force for -0(n+1) when the technology may
change between the two, but I think the current system
(leaving it up to the rights holder when or if to re-file) is
a decent balance. Requiring one on each new version would
make us nuts.
regards,
Ted
If patent disclosures are removed during that time, IETF
participants are denied the possibility to learn about patent
disclosures for the technology. I don't believe that is consistent with
the IETF policy.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf