Subject: -technology (actually thi stime) - ipr disclosure for rfc ed docs

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:26:04 -0400 (EDT)

thomas sez:
> Note: We currently have no way of looking at an RFC and knowing
> whether it is the result of an IETF activity or not. But the current
> set of documents makes it clear that IPR disclosures apply to "IETF
> documents". It is less clear they apply to "RFC Editor
> Contributions". I.e., RFC Editor Contributions must first be submitted
> as IDs (at which point IPR must be disclosed), but once the RFC is
> published, there appears to be no such requirement anymore.  Seems
> like this leaves things underspecified.  Two practical points:
> 
> 1) Is someone who gets an RFC published via the RFC Editor
>    Contribution route obligated to update the IETF (or anyone) about
>    IPR once their document is a published RFC? (AFAIK, this is not
>    clearly specified).
> 
> 2) If known IPR is not required to be disclosed for RFCs in category
>    1, but is for IETF-produced RFCs, it seems like we may need a way
>    to identify which RFCs are IETF documents and which are not. How is
>    this intended to be done? (E.g., maybe all future IETF RFCs should
>    have a line along the lines "this document was produced by the IETF
>    Foo Bar WG".)

I agree that this is the case (the reader does not know) and maybe
something should be added to the headers of IETF RFCs to indicate 
that they are IETF-generated not just for IPR disclosure reasons 
(because I would expect that the RFC Editor rules will say that 
such disclosure is required) but to reduce confusion as to what 
is an IETF document and what is someone's pipe dream but that is 
not something we can do in this WG since the charter limits us to 
clarifing the current rules not making new ones.

Scott

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