Subject: required IPR boilerplates per new policy?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:36:17 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

While discussing what should be included in a document about IPR, I 
looked a bit at technology- and submission-rights which were just 
approved as BCP.

Technology rigths states:
=======
5. Notice to be included in RFCs

   The RFC Editor will ensure that the following notice is present in
   all IETF RFCs and all other RFCs for which an IPR disclosure or
   assertion has been received prior to publication.
[...]
=======

First, I believe the wording is ambiguous, does this mean:
 1) "(all IETF RFCS and all other RFCs) for which IPR ..."
 2) "(all IETF RFCs) and (all other RFCs for which IPR ..."

(i.e., is IPR boilerplate required also for IETF RFCs for which no IPR 
disclosure or assertion has been received?)

May need a clarification by RFC-editor in any case?

Now, I'll assume the first because that's how I first read it (but 
maybe the intent was the second)...

It seems like that the IPR boilerplate at the end need not be included 
for documents which do not have IPR claims at the time of RFC 
publication.

Is this intentional?

I think it would be very useful to have such sections early, because
it also alerts the reader like, "hey, there might be IPR, check it out
on the web page!"

Actually, I think such an IPR boilerplate section should definitely be 
added by the author from -00 draft, but that cannot be mandated at 
this point..

-- 
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