Subject: ipr-technology-02 comments

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:48:53 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

A few comments on the latest ipr technology draft.

Substantial:

      means) must disclose the existence of any IPR claim of the
      participant, the participant's employer or others represented by
      the participant (if any) that they believe would be necessary to
      implement the technology required.

==> s/represented/sponsored/ ?

==> this "representing" actually seem to be quite common a term in the 
draft.  Is it intentional -- I thought there was supposed to be no 
representation?!

         information to the IETF Secretariat at iesg-
         [email-masked]."

==> uhh since when "IETF Secretariat" == "iesg-secretary" ? (similar in 
6.1.3)
 
5.4  Implementing Technology: means a technology which implements an
   IETF specification or standard.

==> what is "IETF specification or standard" ?  Do internet-drafts count?  
Informational RFC's?

Semi/editorial:

==> as in the submissions doc, (sub)section titles are in some places
missing, or not in the words-start-with-upper-caps English.

This memo details the IETF
   policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the
   IETF.

==> is "details" a proper verb (I guess so..) or is something missing 
there?

The
   claims can come from people submitting technical proposals as
   Internet Drafts, on mailing lists or at meetings, from other people
   participating in the working group or from third parties who find out
   that the work is going or has gone on.

==> this is not in sync of wg-guidelines, which lists four cases ("folks 
outside of the IETF" missing?)

   Section 2, 3 and 4 of this document address the intellectual property

==> s/Section/Sections/

         of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
         repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr."

==> I think it would be appropriate for the IETF to use a proper URL 
conforming to HTTP spec; add / at the end?

   It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures is not
   the same thing as the knowledge that there will be no IPR claims in
   the future.  People or organizations not currently involved in the
   IETF. People or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be
   relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR claims at any time.

==> the middle sentence looks awkward, maybe an editing glitch?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:52:38 -0500 (EST)

> ==> uhh since when "IETF Secretariat" == "iesg-secretary" ? (similar in 

since forever

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 17:39:36 -0500 (EST)

see for example RFC 2418 sec 5

----

since forever

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:33:02 +0200 (EET)

> > ==> uhh since when "IETF Secretariat" == "iesg-secretary" ? (similar in 

Is it just me or does this look like bundling conceptually two things
together?  Much better would be just adding some "[email-masked]"  
alias which would be directed to whoever is supposed to process and
receive those messages.