Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
There are a number of different problems, and only some of them have
been articulated. Worse, the problems include the IPR rules themselves,
not just the Note Well:
0. We have had IPR rules and a Note Well for many years and have
revised both a number of times.
I'd bet 90% of folks who read the Note Well aren't even aware that
BCP 79 is a concatenation of RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.
I didn't know that those were the specific RFCs involved. But I didn't have to.
I clicked on the link the last time the Note Well came up, up popped the text
of both RFCs and I read it.
It is a sad fact that having read BCP 79 eight years ago isn't "enough".
That's highly debatable. All RFC 4879 does is clarify one sentence in RFC 3979
having to do with the handling of third party disclosures by the Executive
Director. It doesn't affect the responsibilities of participants at all.
A cogent argument can be made that we should work towards consolidating
and simplifying the IPR documents. This isn't it.
Ned