RE: clarification of blanket statement text

"Robert Barr" <rbarr@cisco.com> Fri, 18 February 2005 19:21 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 OAA27931 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:21:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D2E2v-0006bO-P2 for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:44:17 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D2DQm-0007Hu-7n; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:04:48 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D2D8f-0008Mh-0x for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:46:05 -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 NAA21212 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:46:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D2DUM-00056s-AO for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:08:31 -0500
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Feb 2005 11:59:04 +0000
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,99,1107734400"; d="scan'208"; a="226583901:sNHT55010790"
Received: from rbarrw2k01 ([10.32.226.37]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j1IIjTYO005445; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200502181845.j1IIjTYO005445@sj-core-4.cisco.com>
From: Robert Barr <rbarr@cisco.com>
To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand' <harald@alvestrand.no>, "'George T. Willingmyre'" <gtw@gtwassociates.com>, 'Scott W Brim' <sbrim@cisco.com>, ipr-wg@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:45:29 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
In-Reply-To: <C894CB81C38DE53489DC609F@gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
Thread-Index: AcUV4n32T2ZUy3jdTJGCElM94s7awgABrwgQ
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.0.111621
X-from-outside-Cisco: [10.32.226.37]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
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
Reply-To: rbarr@cisco.com
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: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

> -----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