On 11.6.2012 16:17 , "Scott O Bradner" <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases.
What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer
that I was speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is
ambiguous; one must file IPR statements for standards, but not for
informational documents. We wound up wandering through the details of
legal statements, in which I felt he was working pretty hard to make
words stand on their heads.
in case anyone wonders
one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very
carefully fixed
in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions
ALL IETF contributions. NOT all contributions to the RFC editor, and not
all RFCs. (Which is of a certain relevance given, for example, the VP8
codec definition RFC)
And, only if the IPR in question is yours or your employer's.
Stephan
Scott