Hi Yaron,
Reading through this draft, I note that you're suggesting inclusion of
information about the type of implementation license (open source,
proprietary, etc.). While that may be useful, I'd be more interested in
knowing whether the implementation represents an exercise of any licenses
required by IPR disclosures for the relevant draft. Since there are
implementations (even open source implementations) that might be submitted
by the same organization holding the IPR, this is not something you can
automatically infer. There are also, of course, cases where an implementor
does not agree that an IPR statement's claim of coverage is correct.
Before we eliminated the requirements for demonstrating two interoperable
implementations at Draft, one piece of that requirement was that the two
being used represent different exercises of any license. If we are going
to start tracking implementations, it might be useful to get that data back.
regards,
Ted Hardie