On 11.6.2012 16:17 , "Scott O Bradner" <s...@sobco.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <f...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. >>What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer >>that I was speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is >>ambiguous; one must file IPR statements for standards, but not for >>informational documents. We wound up wandering through the details of >>legal statements, in which I felt he was working pretty hard to make >>words stand on their heads. > >in case anyone wonders > >one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very >carefully fixed >in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions ALL IETF contributions. NOT all contributions to the RFC editor, and not all RFCs. (Which is of a certain relevance given, for example, the VP8 codec definition RFC) And, only if the IPR in question is yours or your employer's. Stephan > >Scott