The other issue, also "IPR", has to do with copyright, and what should be
required to be given up and when. On that subject, it is, IMO, entirely
reasonable for the IETF to insist on permanent licenses for archiving,
redistribution, and derived works on anything that is contributed to, or
arises from, the standards process (even non-standards-track documents).
But, for simple publication/posting of a document as an I-D, there is no
necessity --at least no necessity rooted in the standards process-- for
any license grants at all that extend beyond the expiration date of the
I-D. I.e., the argument about needing extended rights has to do with
what I would describe as "IETF documents" (a much narrower usage than in
Scott's I-Ds), and not with what posting an I-D which is not an "IETF
document" needs to
I think we-the-IETF need a permanent license for archiving, no matter what;
settling prior-arts searches or a legal challenge to actions performed on
I-Ds could easily require us to produce a copy.