Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Fwd: PKCS#9 and #10

To reintroduce a smidgeon more context, I kicked things into motion by
noting that https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/discusses/ lists a document
as having a 1031-day-old Discuss, and looking at the ballot positions
indicates that there was a need to follow up on the licensing.

I am not 100% confident that I would think to look at the IPR declarations
against that document to attempt to resolve such a situation, but I also
don't have any better ideas for where to put something in a mechanical way
(i.e., that doesn't rely on the possibly-former AD updating a ballot
position).

-Ben

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:24:08PM -0600, Robert Sparks wrote:
> There's been context-away.
> 
> As Henrik suggested, you _could_ enter them as IPR disclosures (with the 
> pdf as an attachment), and those would come up in searches on any 
> documents that obsoleted/modified these.
> 
> Why does that not seem the right thing to do?
> 
> RjS
> 
> On 1/15/21 10:37 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Is there any way we can address this?  Ben, current AD is assuming the 
> > transfer didn't happen even though it was complete.  There's no marker 
> > attached to the datatracker record to indicate the transfer for these 
> > 2 documents happened.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Kathleen
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:00 PM Henrik Levkowetz 
> > <henrik@levkowetz.com <mailto:henrik@levkowetz.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Kathleen,
> >
> >     On 2019-07-30 21:29, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> >     > Hello!
> >     >
> >     > I am not sure how I can attach this change in the copyright and
> >     change
> >     > control status to RFC2985 and RFC2986.  The IPR disclosure page
> >     doesn't
> >     > quite fit as the license is specific to the standard and opening
> >     it up
> >     > further for use.  For the other PKCS documents, we did a
> >     revision of the
> >     > RFC.  I'd like this to not be lost with me and for others doing
> >     work with
> >     > these standards to know that it is fine for them to do so.  Any
> >     ideas?
> >
> >     IPR declarations carry forward through "obsoletes" and "replaces"
> >     document
> >     relationships, so if a new RFC marks the previous one as
> >     obsoleted, the
> >     IPR declaration should show up for any new RFCs for the same standard.
> >
> >     Registering the change for the current RFCs seems to be the right
> >     thing
> >     to do.
> >
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >
> >             Henrik
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kathleen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> > TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development