RE: clarification of blanket statement text
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 18 February 2005 19:23 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28228 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:23:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D2E4p-0006fw-CH for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:46:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D2DQs-0007PM-BH; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:04:54 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D2DEj-000236-4p for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:52:21 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21820 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:52:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D2DaQ-0005H0-2u for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:14:47 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3021621E8; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:51:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13179-09; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:51:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F422961B7D; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:51:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:51:47 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: rbarr@cisco.com, "'George T. Willingmyre'" <gtw@gtwassociates.com>, 'Scott W Brim' <sbrim@cisco.com>, ipr-wg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9B5627D8D8D0D05958164E3E@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <200502181845.j1IIjTYO005445@sj-core-4.cisco.com>
References: <200502181845.j1IIjTYO005445@sj-core-4.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You're right. I think this proves that we were not reading RFC 3668 when we wrote it. What do you suggest that we do about it? --On fredag, februar 18, 2005 10:45:29 -0800 Robert Barr <rbarr@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand >> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:05 AM >> To: rbarr@cisco.com; 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim'; >> ipr-wg@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text >> >> >> >> --On fredag, februar 18, 2005 08:32:33 -0800 Robert Barr >> <rbarr@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Agreed - these companies will have to continue to make specific IPR >> >> statements. Making such statements is consistent with the >> >> RFC, and provides >> >> information to the IETF community - which I think is a Good >> >> Thing - but >> >> they do not lessen the requirement on the companies that make them. >> >> >> >> Harald >> > They should be marked non-compliant, as is done with other types of >> > statements. Why is it consistent w RFC?? The excerpt above says >> > "requirement not satisfied" >> >> As I interpret it, they satisfy the formal requirements for a >> disclosure, >> but do not satisfy the (more strict) requirement for a >> disclosure that >> allows the filer to not file any more disclosures. >> >> Scott and Jorge will probably chime in if I got that one wrong. > > > they don't satisfy this formal requirement: > > 6.4. What must be in a disclosure? > > 6.4.1. .... The disclosure must also list the > specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected. If the > IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific > version number. .. > _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
- clarification of blanket statement text Scott W Brim
- Re: clarification of blanket statement text todd glassey
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- Re: clarification of blanket statement text todd glassey
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Lawrence Rosen
- Re: clarification of blanket statement text Scott W Brim
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Lawrence Rosen
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Contreras, Jorge
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Contreras, Jorge
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- Re: clarification of blanket statement text Scott W Brim
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Powers Chuck-RXCP20
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Robert Barr
- Re: clarification of blanket statement text Scott W Brim
- RE: clarification of blanket statement text Lawrence Rosen
- UIRe: clarification of blanket statement text George T. Willingmyre
- Re: clarification of blanket statement text George Willingmyre