IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic IPR Disclosures

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 09 May 2014 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE87D1A024D for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 03:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KoCHSMSBjQg for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 03:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042351A0243 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 03:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1WiiAm-0008x1-A9; Fri, 09 May 2014 06:37:00 -0400
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 06:37:00 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>, "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Generic IPR Disclosures
Message-ID: <E55049B41833A30ADBEEEDC0@JCK-EEE10>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140508212826.0bd3f1c0@resistor.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140508112635.0b83b2b8@elandnews.com> <F0BF319A-75E9-47BE-8018-27F9C4EAA474@harvard.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20140508121030.0c166970@resistor.net> <C5D47DCFBE3D7F5F658C600C@JCK-EEE10> <6.2.5.6.2.20140508212826.0bd3f1c0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/PrkfPw9fz0i66X-XfM8drWcELgw
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 10:37:10 -0000


--On Thursday, 08 May, 2014 22:13 -0700 SM <sm@resistor.net>
wrote:

> Hi John,
> At 19:47 08-05-2014, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Are you saying anything different from "a third party
>> disclosure may identify IPR related to a particular
>> specification but, obviously and logically, cannot make a
>> binding statement about licensing terms."?
> 
> No.

Then, given the "obviously and logically" part, why are we
having  this discussion?  Isn't it, at most, just and editorial
suggestion that revisions of the IPR spec make that point
explicitly?

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email