Re: Last Call: Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label to Proposed Standard

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <29412.1049551327@munnari.OZ.AU>, Robert Elz writes:
>I have been told in the past, that it is unacceptable for I-Ds
>intended to be published to contain contradictory statements.
>
>This one does.
>
>It says (twice, for reasons I won't begin to guess at)
>
>   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
>   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
>
>and also says
>
>Full Copyright Statement
>
>   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
>
>   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
>   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
>
>which is certainly taking a position with respect to the validity and
>scope of at least one aspect of the intellectual property related to the
>document.
>

"send text".  You clearly know what was intended -- ISOC has its own 
copyright, but we're not taking a position on an other claims, most 
notably patent claims.  What wording do you suggest?  (Changing those 
policies is almost certainly not going to happen now, since the ipr wg 
seems to be reaching consensus against any significant changes at the 
moment.)


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)