Evaluation: draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights

[Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>]

  draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08:

  DISCUSS:

    In section 5.2, the special rules for MIB or PIB modules are
    discussed.  ASN.1 modules should be explicitly listed too;
    however, ASN.1 modules do not require any handling by IANA.  In
    this way, ASN.1 modules are different than MIB and PIB modules.
    Also, some documents include programs or scripts.  These are
    intended to be copied from the RFC.

    In section 5.6, the document calls for the inclusion of a URL
    to obtain full for full legal notices.  I see this as quite
    different than referencing a section in an RFC since the content
    of the referenced web page can be changed after publication.

  COMMENT:

    In section 1, the definition of "Reasonably and personally known"
    starts with a description, but then moves into a "requirement."
    Requirements should not be embedded in definitions.

  draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12:

  DISCUSS:

    In section 6.3, the URL does not point to anything:
    http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.

  COMMENT:

    In section 1, the definition of "Reasonably and personally known"
    starts with a description, but then moves into a "requirement."
    Requirements should not be embedded in definitions.

  draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05:

  COMMENT:

    Section 4.3 says: "In the mid-90s, the basic principles of public
    key infrastructure had been patented for years."  This is not
    quite right.  All digital signature algorithms were covered by
    patents, and a digital signature algorithm is needed to implement
    PKI.  In sections 4.1 and 4.2, the patented technology is named.
    Why not name RSA here?