Re: draft-ietf-ipr-template-02.txt

Scott,

Scott Bradner wrote:
> 
> I see no reason whatsoever that this template should say anything at
> all about the type of document the disclosure is about - this is
> a template for an IPR disclosure and that is all it should be

Disclosures need to be specific. draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights
already expands the scope of disclosures from RFC 2026, which I
rather expect will be an issue at Last Call. We should at least
be explicit about the scope in the disclosure template.

> thus *all* mention of "standards track" (or any other designation)
> from it
> 
> note that this template also needs to cover email messages etc - so
> it should not be document type specific at all
> 
> for example - sec IV of the template should be stripped back to remove the
> 2nd paragraph of the heading and to remove all mention of
> standard or non standard track from the 1st pp - all it should
> say is that it is the Licensing Declaration - no more, no less

That doesn't compute. I would be very surprised to see IPR holders
issuing licensing declarations covering (for example)
single lines in WG minutes, but they might well want to issue a
disclosure for such a case. A licensing declaration, if made,
needs to be specific, and I expect most of them to be restricted
to standards track documents. (And, by the way, BCP should be mentioned
for completeness.)

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