Re: Revision to Note Well

Hi,

On 2014-2-7, at 16:16, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
> On 2/7/2014 12:05 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> > Exactly. The new text does not address the issue.
> >
> > Lars
> >
> > PS: I'll again point to the IRTF statement, which does:http://irtf.org/ipr. 
> > We'll make it available to the IETF for the low, low price of a round of 
> > beers for the IRSG:-)
> 1. Has the text been vetted by the IETF's attorney?
yes.

> 2. How does this 'summary' avoid the danger that has been cited, of providing 
> a potential ambiguity argument through exploitation of any differences 
> between the summary source text?
Not sure how to answer that, other than saying that Jorge was OK with it? (It 
does point at the BCP for the detailed rules.)

> 3. How does any of this resolve the much deeper problem that this lengthy 
> thread has served to demonstrate that we very clearly have extensive 
> community confusion about on what the current IPR rules are or mean?
It doesn't - that's a much broader question, which I agree we need to somehow 
tackle.

Lars

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail