> 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,
> 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 
>> 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  doesn't show one.
>>> But there is one. 
>>> The RFC3926bis draft  has a new IPR declaration 
>>> I got confused by the lack of visibility of  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,
>>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3926 >>>  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/ >>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13 >>> 
>>> 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 >>