For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think
it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we
know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired
WG document years later doesn't seem entirely unlikely.
AVT's chair just stepped down after 10 years of service (thanks, Colin!),
so it is definitely not impossible. If a WG draft is getting picked up
with largely the same content and new editors, there is no need
for a new declaration. If there is a change, there is always a risk
that the old declaration is still present but no longer applies; our
system relies on the person making the IPR declaration to notice
this and do something about it. Alternatively, the person *reading*
the notice can follow the link to the claimed IPR and decide for
themselves whether they believe it or not.
However, strictly speaking, I don't believe the filename is a useful
unique identifier. For example, two authors could have the same name,
resulting in draft filename re-use years later.
This doesn't worry me a lot, as it would have to be a combination
of the same name, topic, and probably wg name. There are
possibilities for issues here, but those sharing the same name
working in the IETF on the same issues seem to have found
ways around them (possibly with same assistance from the
secretariat I'm not aware of).
Having an old patent
disclosures apply if the new authors have the same name as the old
authors, and the old patent disclosure not apply if the new authors have
different names as the old authors, seems silly. The filenames aren't
what is important.
I believe it is more appropriate that patent disclosures are related to
the _content_ of a specific draft, rather than to its filename. If you
think about it this way, it doesn't matter whether the filename is
changed or not. My reading of RFC 3979 suggests this is what the policy
actually says. I'm curious if you or anyone has another interpretation.
Here's some of the text from 6.1.1
Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the
Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or
sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such
Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section
6.
This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by
any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter
are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably
be submitted. An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous
disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR
disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised
Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure.
The IPR statement is about the contribution, in other words;
the filename is just a way of referencing the contribution for
internet drafts.
Reading through this, I see that the recommendation that
an IPR discloser "withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised
Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure" made it into
the BCP. Someone else will have to decide if this is already
consonant with Paul's suggestion, or whether it would have
to be amended.
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.
Indeed.
/Simon
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf