<draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06.txt>

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

bert asks:
> W.r.t. sect 4 sub (A), I wonder if that is correct.
> It seems to say (at least to me) that we may need to update existing RFCs
> if we get any IPR claims in the future. Is that intended? Is that what
> it does say?

it does not (can not) mean updating already published RFCs since else
where teh docs say that RFCs are never changted

this (old) text was aimed at having the IESG make sure that about to
be published RFCs had the IPR boilerplate (which used to be
different if claims had been received) - but I think it might be
able to remove this, or at least tweak it if the IPR text must be
on all stds track RFCs - one issue is still the non-stds track
IDs that IPR claims have been received for

Scott