Hi Simon, all, Before some "silence means approval" assumption kicks in here, allow me to voice my concerns again. I continue to believe that changing the current practice (which allows the removal of disclosures form the IETF database) is NOT a good thing. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe that the act of removing a disclosure form a database actually removes any obligations resulting from promises made---nor does, in my opinion, the update of a disclosure. I'm not going to repeat my arguments again; I think they are known.
However, realizing that a consensus in another direction may be forming, let me suggest four amendments to Paul Hoffman's proposal on the table: a. The submitter should have some control over which disclosures should be shown in an obvious place, and which require some "digging". A simple way to implement that would be a "visible" flag in the database; when viewing the database in "basic" mode, only those "visible" flagged disclosures would be displayed; in expert mode, however, all disclosures would be accessible. b. At present, the database is organized into three sectors, "general IPR statements", "specific IPR statements", and "third party IPR statements". Along the lines of the discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED], to avoid future confusion, I suggest replacing the word "IPR" with "Patents" (or "Patents, Patent applications, and similar rights" to make the lawyers happy), and add a fourth category "non-patent IPR". Things like the Jabber trademark statement https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/324/ would go to the new category. c. It has to be understood and documented that the past practice does not constitute any wrongdoing; neither by the IETF officers and staff, nor by the rightholders who requested removal of disclosures. d. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it needs to be documented beyond mailing list postings. I don't particularly care whether this documentation is in the form of an BCP, or an IESG position statement, or whatever... (Well, ideally, it would be an BCP I guess---community consensus). This does not mean that the tools work would have to wait for the BCP to be issued; nor that companies voluntarily stop submitting removal requests from the database. For Nokia, I can say that we are prepared to do so. Regards, Stephan On 8/15/08 4:15 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> >>> For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think >>> it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we >>> know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired >>> WG document years later doesn't seem entirely unlikely. >> >> AVT's chair just stepped down after 10 years of service (thanks, Colin!), >> so it is definitely not impossible. If a WG draft is getting picked up >> with largely the same content and new editors, there is no need >> for a new declaration. If there is a change, there is always a risk >> that the old declaration is still present but no longer applies; our >> system relies on the person making the IPR declaration to notice >> this and do something about it. Alternatively, the person *reading* >> the notice can follow the link to the claimed IPR and decide for >> themselves whether they believe it or not. > > Right, but that assumes the disclosure is still around at that time. > This part of the thread started with arguments from Stephan that it > should be allowed to remove disclosures. I'm trying to provide > arguments for keeping disclosures around indefinitely. You appears to > assume this, and if most people already agree with that, I don't think > we need to discuss this aspect further. > > /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
