Re: On not using (r) and (tm)

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com>]

On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 12:04, Scott W Brim wrote:

> I took a quick look at 3805 ... is a string in a comment in a MIB that 
> looks like a trademark statement the same as an actual statement in 
> the main text of the RFC?  I don't think so.  I think it's a 
> completely different case -- it's about what should be in the MIB, a 
> WG decision, not a question of IPR procedures for contributions.  No?

so if the contributor in my case was happy with putting the TM notice in an
embedded code fragment we could just move on and paste it into the docs without
waiting for the IPR WG to converge?  cool....

					- Bill

P.S. I'm not serious.  This seems like the wrong hair to split -- we'd be 
better off treating non-functional comments in embedded source fragments in IETF
documents the same as regular body text.

P.P.S. by functional comments I mean hacks like /*NOTREACHED*/ and the 
way in which javascript hides inside html comments.



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