The track is bizarre..... the draft in question is
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights, and the para has mutated:
-00: (C) Where the IESG has been informed of claimed intellectual
property rights under (A), the IETF Executive Director shall
request from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that
-03: (C) Where intellectual property rights have been disclosed as
provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF Executive
Director shall request from the discloser of such rights, a
I think "claimant" was ambiguous, but I can't imagine what we were
thinking when we changed it to "discloser"......
--On onsdag, november 02, 2005 23:23:53 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
BCP 79 (currently RFC 3979) says
(C) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR,
a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for
publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all
persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing
Technology under one of the licensing options specified in
Section 6.5 below unless such a statement has already been
submitted.
Now this makes no sense in the case of a third party disclosure,
since in that case the discloser does not own the IPR and
therefore cannot give such an assurance. Surely the text should say
...the IETF
Executive Director shall request from the owner of such IPR,...
Is that what we meant? If so, can we handle this through the
RFC Editor errata mechanism?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg