Re: [rohc] draft-ace-robust-hc-01.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

the FRC Editor can deal with this type of thing if it is an issue but
normally the copyright is the last thing in the document

Scott

---
From rohc-owner@basil.cdt.luth.se Tue Mar 14 10:25:59 2000
X-Authentication-Warning: basil.cdt.luth.se: majordom set sender to owner-robhc using -f
From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson" <lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com>
To: <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Cc: <rohc@cdt.luth.se>
Subject: Re: [rohc] draft-ace-robust-hc-01.txt
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:26:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: owner-robhc@cdt.luth.se
Precedence: bulk


>btw, shouldn't the 'Intellectual Property Considerations' section be
>up top in the 'Status of this Memo' section?


Is there a "rule" for that??
In, for example, the ROCCO draft, there has been a statement section about IPR
since september because it was requested when ROCCO was presented for the first
time in Oslo. This section has been (and still is) in the end of the document
and I have heard no complains about it. Please let us all know if this is not
good!!

What I think is a more important question than where to put it is what must be
said in such IPR sections. The reason for having them is that we want to know
about IPR "problems" and have the possibility to avoid solutions that are not
"free" (or is there other reasons?). What should be stated by those having IPR
to make such solutions considerable anyway???

Regards!
/Lars-Erik

---
Mailing list for Robust Header Compression WG
Archive: http://www.cdt.luth.se/rohc/