RE: clarification of blanket statement text

 I don't see any value (not A Good Thing) in allowing blanket RAND
statements (particularly if we all agree they are ineffective) and I
definitely WAS reading rfc3668 when we wrote it .
I do think we need clarification on whether "free with defensive suspension"
qualifies for blanket statement.

> -----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 10:52 AM
> To: rbarr@cisco.com; 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim'; 
> ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg