Subject: RE: Followup on disclosure form question

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:30:18 -0800

Excellent point around the change control issues.... if the form
is to be a suggested method only, number 3 sounds like the 
optimum solution...

-- Val

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:24 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Valerie See
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Followup on disclosure form question

> What I had thought would be that in Scott's (Bradner) section 6.4, the

> "form" could be placed as a suggested format for disclosures (that
would

I would much rather not have the form in this doc - it seems much better
to not have to revisit this doc if a minor change is seen to be
useful in the form

I do think we need to do one of the following:
	1/ decide we will not use a form and just leave the text
	   the way it is (modulo tweaks) in my & teh other Scott's
	   documents
	2/ decide we will have a form and change the text to say that
	   a discloser needs to go to a particular URL to get the form
	3/ punt and say "look at this URL to find out how to submit
	   a disclosure" - which can be simple text (send mail to 
	   [email-masked] - where xxx chould change) or a form (or
	   pointer to a form)

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 10:24:09 +0100

For now it has to be #3 or we will never close on this
document. The form is only to help people disclose, not
to rigidly define what they disclose, so I don't agree
with John Klensin's argument.

I do agree with Harald that the form should be developed
by open process - not sure that a WG is justified, but
it has to be a consensus.

   Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:43:51 -0500

> it has to be a consensus.

If the form is developed by an open process, and it is agreed 
that any revisions will also be subject to an open process, then 
we are actually in complete agreement.

    john