Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
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.
Right, but that assumes the disclosure is still around at that time.
This part of the thread started with arguments from Stephan that it
should be allowed to remove disclosures. I'm trying to provide
arguments for keeping disclosures around indefinitely. You appears to
assume this, and if most people already agree with that, I don't think
we need to discuss this aspect further.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf