Subject: Re: FW: <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06.txt>

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:19:57 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Sect 5 tells people that RFC-Editor will add text for the required
> IPR statements for stds track RFCs.
> 
> I contend that it is is much better to have authors/editors add that
> text in their Internt-Drafts, so that it gets seen during WG and 
> IETF Last Calls, so that whoever believes that he/she needs to 
> comment is clearly pointed out that they need to think about it.

I strongly agree with this.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Scott Bradner wrote:
> >[Bert Wijnen wrote:]
> > > And as far as I know, the CURRENT policy and procedure is that the
> > > editors authors MUST include the IPR text in the I-D that they submit
> > > for stds track consideration.
> >
> > 2026 says the IPR notices need to be there in the RFC, it does
> > not say how they should get there
>
> The IESG could enforce this provision by enforcing the ID-nits
> requirements. It's in there.

And I think that this is the right thing to do.  I might add that
it's one of the standard checklist items in reviews of MIB documents
(see Appendix A of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt>).

I would also recommend (as I stated in my last call comments on
<draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt>) that the instructions to RFC
authors explicitly call out a separate IPR section (both in the body
of the text and in the checklist) and note that it is required for
standards-track documents.

//cmh

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