Re: IPR declaration goes poof?

> Hi Stephen,
>
> So it turns out that the datatracker was now exporting IPR information
> to me (through a dedicated text page) with all the rfcs indicated as
> 'RFCxxxx' rather than 'rfcxxxx' -- while the tools pages have all doc's
> named with lowercase.  I added a case normalization of the IPR info at
> my end, and the rfc page now carries the IPR link it should have carried
> all the time.
>
> Thanks for the alert, and sorry for the trouble!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Henrik
>
> On 2012-03-01 19:41 Henrik Levkowetz said:
>> 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
>>
>