« Return to Thread: IPR declaration goes poof?
Re: IPR declaration goes poof?
by Henrik Levkowetz
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Stephen,
On 2012-03-01 18:20 Stephen Farrell said:
>
> The text below was a discuss point I raised on a document that
> maybe turns out to be a tools issue.
>
> RFC 3926 on the tools page doesn't show any IPR [1]
Hmm. That's not good. My first guesses at the reason (which was
that the export from the datatracker had broken with the big
upgrade) turned out to be wrong. I need to dig deeper down to
find out why [2] doesn't show one.
> But there is one. [2]
> The RFC3926bis draft [3] has a new IPR declaration [4]
>
> I got confused by the lack of visibility of [2] and wrote up
> that discuss.
>
> Is this a case of the new IPR declaration messing up the
> link between the base RFC and its IPR declaration or something?
Shouldn't be so -- the obvious reasons I looked for didn't fly.
Will get back to you once I know more.
Best regards,
Henrik
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3926
> [2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/
> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13
> [4]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised
>
> My discuss text is below.
>
> -----
>
> #1 The IPR situation here appears complex. This obsoletes the
> experimental 3296 which has no IPR declarations. A common author
> for this and 3926 is an inventor of IPR declared in 2006 on this
> document. Could I get a pointer to where the WG was informed of
> and/or considered this? (Had a quick look, didn't find it.) Is it
> (still) the case that 3926 is not considered to require an IPR
> declaration but this document does? Reading section 11, I don't
> see much change here so as a result, I'm unclear as to whether the
> meta-data for these documents is consistent and considered so by
> the WG.
>
> So this may be more of a tools issue perhaps - if the new declaration
> supercedes the old then maybe the tools page for the RFC forgets the
> old IPR declaration or something. I'll keep the discuss so's we can
> figure that out.
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/ is a declaration on RFC 3926 as
> it turns out.
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss@...
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
On 2012-03-01 18:20 Stephen Farrell said:
>
> The text below was a discuss point I raised on a document that
> maybe turns out to be a tools issue.
>
> RFC 3926 on the tools page doesn't show any IPR [1]
Hmm. That's not good. My first guesses at the reason (which was
that the export from the datatracker had broken with the big
upgrade) turned out to be wrong. I need to dig deeper down to
find out why [2] doesn't show one.
> But there is one. [2]
> The RFC3926bis draft [3] has a new IPR declaration [4]
>
> I got confused by the lack of visibility of [2] and wrote up
> that discuss.
>
> Is this a case of the new IPR declaration messing up the
> link between the base RFC and its IPR declaration or something?
Shouldn't be so -- the obvious reasons I looked for didn't fly.
Will get back to you once I know more.
Best regards,
Henrik
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3926
> [2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/
> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13
> [4]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised
>
> My discuss text is below.
>
> -----
>
> #1 The IPR situation here appears complex. This obsoletes the
> experimental 3296 which has no IPR declarations. A common author
> for this and 3926 is an inventor of IPR declared in 2006 on this
> document. Could I get a pointer to where the WG was informed of
> and/or considered this? (Had a quick look, didn't find it.) Is it
> (still) the case that 3926 is not considered to require an IPR
> declaration but this document does? Reading section 11, I don't
> see much change here so as a result, I'm unclear as to whether the
> meta-data for these documents is consistent and considered so by
> the WG.
>
> So this may be more of a tools issue perhaps - if the new declaration
> supercedes the old then maybe the tools page for the RFC forgets the
> old IPR declaration or something. I'll keep the discuss so's we can
> figure that out.
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/ is a declaration on RFC 3926 as
> it turns out.
> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss@...
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
« Return to Thread: IPR declaration goes poof?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
