Subject: -technology - definitions

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:07:47 -0400 (EDT)

thomas sez:
> I assume these are suppsoed to be _identical_ to those in the          
> draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-10.txt? Hmm. they aren't quite. Note:
> Definition m. has more text in one than the other, and n., o., and
> p. are absent in ipr-technology.

n, o & p (included in -technology and not in -subnissions) are not
in submissions because the terms are not used - I saw no reason to
include them

the defs that are in both docs should have been the same - and will be
made so

Scott

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