RE: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:52 PM
> To: Scott Bradner
> Cc: sob@harvard.edu; ipr-wg@ietf.org; 
> jorge.contreras@haledorr.com; rbarr@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: Issue found in RFC 3667 text
> 
> 
> At 10:43 PM 04/27/04 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote:
> >I'm not sure how serious an issuethe race condition in the 
> boilerplate is 
> >since I think someone would be hardput to show bad intent if the 
> >disclosure was filed at the same time or within a day or so 
> of the ID 
> >being sent in  (Jorge maybe you can comment)
> 

Bad intent is not the issue. Filing a day or so after the Idraft is
submitted is inconsistent w the literal language of this boilerplate, which
says IPR claims "have been disclosed". For that reason, this should be
changed to be consistent with 3668 which says

   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an
   Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file.

We worked hard on that langauge and the template (which was doenm w/o
consulting the IPR WG) should be consistent.

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