RE: IPR and Copyright Statements

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Scott,

No IPR claims have been made. Do we need to include the text suggested by RFC 3667 - Section 5.1?

   "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668."

(I assume that we need change 'I' by 'we' in the case of multiple authors - is this true? or 'verbatim' is 'verbatim'?) 


Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob@harvard.edu]
> Sent: 15 June, 2004 6:16 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); harald@alvestrand.no
> Cc: ops-area@ops.ietf.org; sob@harvard.edu; wgchairs@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: IPR and Copyright Statements
> 
> 
> > However, I am just now witnessing a discussion on the IPR 
> list, which
> > makes me believe that the IPR disclosure statement may not 
> be 'stable'.
> 
> if you have disclosed any IPR in the ID that you know about you can 
> go ahead and use the 3667 IPR boilerplate - the only issue on that
> boilerplate is that there is a race condition between submitting
> an ID and an IPR disclosure referring to that ID
> 
> the issue was discussed in the IPR WG and it was decided to add the
> "as soon as possible" language to cover the cases where IDs may
> get reviewed in a company after they are published (which is the
> case in some companies) - if that is not the case with your ID
> then just use the 3667 text
> 
> Scott
> 
>