correct - except that the IRTF has adopted the same disclosure requirements
Scott On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Stephan Wenger <st...@stewe.org> wrote: > > > 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 > >
