On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:11, Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
A quick couple of questions to the list based on a document I saw recently.
If a document (an ID in this case) contains encumbered material (in this case
consists of 90%+ encumbered material), and the document is authored by the
organization (or members of the organization) that holds the encumbrance,
should the document contain an IPR disclosure itself or is it sufficient to
submit a IPR disclosure through the IETF web interface?
IPR statements are never put in RFCs unless on occasion they are
informational transplants from outside. The IPR claims or other
aspects might change over time and the right place to track all that
is in the IPR disclosures.
Should the ID Nits tool check for the inclusion of the notices for IPR
required by section 5.1 of RFC 3978?
IMHO that would be good.
If a document contains primarily encumbered material, is authored by the
owner of the encumbered material or its employees and is a non-work group
document, is it appropriate to tag such document as "Intended Status:
Standards Track"?
As John says, we don't have any rules about what IPR is acceptable,
and actual practice depends on the WG and the situation. In one case
terms were accepted because the patents were to expire in 2-3 years.
RFC3669 is pretty old but might still be a useful read.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf