Subject: revised IDs

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:11:44 -0500 (EST)

I've stuck revised versions of the two IPR docs on www.sobco.com

http://www.sobco.com:ietf/draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-03.txt
http://www.sobco.com:ietf/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-03.txt

these reflect the comments that came in over the last few weeks
and are the versions I will be talking about during the IPR WG session
on monday

Scott
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:35:54 -0500

> I've stuck revised versions of the two IPR docs on www.sobco.com

I have a few editorial comments and one substantive one.  Which one do
you think it is? :)

> http://www.sobco.com:ietf/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-03.txt

Actually
http://www.sobco.com/ietf/draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-03.txt and
http://www.sobco.com/ietf/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-03.txt.

In technology,

> IPR claims can: come at any point in the IETF process e.g. before the

spurious ":".

comma before "e.g." would feel better.

> submitting the contribution. If the contribution is an Internet-Draft

Ewwww.  Hyphen in "internet draft"?

> implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
> to Implementing Technology under one of the licensing options

The old one said "with respect to an Implementing Technology".  It still
says "an" Implementing Technology down in 6.5.  Is this intentional?

> IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at
> http://www.ietf.org/ipr- instructions.

hyphen error, probably from nroff

> Except for third party disclosures (which are encouraged under section
> 6.1.3), disclosures are required whenever the IPR in question is owned
> or licensed, directly or indirectly, by the individual or his/her
> employer or sponsor (if any) or such persons otherwise have the right
> to license or enforce, and a license under any claims of

I think the "except for" clause in the first sentence is unnecessary.
The situation you're describing is not third party by definition, so the
exception for third party is irrelevant.

6.7, call for IPR disclosures, has been removed?

> 8. Evaluating alternative technologies in IETF working groups
>
>    SHOULD THIS BE REMOVED IN LIGHT OF THE GUIDELINES DOCUMENT?

I think so.  If there's something missing in the guidelines doc, we can
toss it in.  It is dependent on yours, so that's a natural process.  

..swb

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:46:37 -0500 (EST)

> comma before "e.g." would feel better.

this was the way the suggestion was punctuated

> Ewwww.  Hyphen in "internet draft"?

matter of style - could go with or without

> says "an" Implementing Technology down in 6.5.  Is this intentional?

I think its better without the "an" - in that its not limmited to one

> hyphen error, probably from nroff

ack

> exception for third party is irrelevant.

I agree its not needed but I think its useful to reenforce the encouragement

> toss it in.  It is dependent on yours, so that's a natural process.  

mostly agree - but it depends on what the status of the guidelines doc
will have - if BCP then yes, but if not I think this needs to be a BCP
doc

Scott