[Tools-discuss] Re: IPR for draft update in datatracker not as expected?

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 13 August 2024 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A80C1E7230 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpOmvdWfuHiA for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625A6C09E1C4 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (172-125-100-52.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [172.125.100.52]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB53D1E039; Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:39:08 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B8AD80F5-7C59-46CA-8ECC-968226709762"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.8\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <37f1caa4-0dec-476c-8a0d-67d4645c0086@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:39:08 -0400
Message-Id: <27DF3C56-305E-4B94-A9B8-2CA4FBBB9A24@pfrc.org>
References: <E2BE4986-2CBE-4A97-AEA5-3278746906A4@pfrc.org> <37f1caa4-0dec-476c-8a0d-67d4645c0086@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.8)
Message-ID-Hash: MYZR3HXMVDDTX4UPVBDKKC4XIR46DM33
X-Message-ID-Hash: MYZR3HXMVDDTX4UPVBDKKC4XIR46DM33
X-MailFrom: jhaas@pfrc.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tools-discuss.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: IPR for draft update in datatracker not as expected?
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/CTdbXp5cCUOH6fOrEhJ-2AZ8OqY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tools-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org>

Thanks, Robert.  Please let me know the opened issue.  Juniper's IPR legal group will be interested in tracking its resolution.

-- Jeff


> On Aug 13, 2024, at 12:37 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff -
> 
> Yes, the search results page should be improved.
> 
> Note that IPR search page for RFC5575 says
> 
> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on RFC 5575 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5575/>, but there are disclosures on a related document, listed on this page.
> 
> and the results contain the draft.
> 
> The search page for 8955 should propogate to the related documents for the RFCs returned.
> 
> We'll open an issue.
> 
> RjS
> 
> On 8/13/24 11:26 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> Consider the following:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=rfc8955 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=rfc8955>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=rfc5575 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=rfc5575>
>> 
>> RFC 8955 is a -bis of RFC 5575.
>> 
>> The 8955 IPR page says "5575 doesn't have IPR disclosures".  However, you can see that 5575 absolutely has some.
>> 
>> Is this a bug in the inheritance lookup or am I misinterpreting the intent for the 8955 page's lookup vs. 5575?
>> 
>> -- Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Tools-discuss mailing list -- tools-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org <mailto:tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>