Re: IPR declaration goes poof?

> 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
>