RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

>    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.
> 
Russ, I assume you mean:

      When the MIB or PIB module is the initial version of a module that
      is to be maintained by the IANA, the following abbreviated notice
      shall be included:

         "Copyright (C) The Internet Society <year>.  The initial
         version of this MIB module was published in RFC XXXX; for full
         legal notices see the RFC itself or see:
         http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html.";

If so, then pls realize that we discussed this in the IESG quite
extensively early this year, and that we had it reviewed by our IETF
lawyer and the IANA lawyer. So it seems to be OK to me.
We had it on our IESG agenda on April 3rd, 2003 under Management Issues.
And we then approved it.

Anyway I would hate to break it open again.
What we may need to be carefull with is to make sure it does not get
changed, or if it does that it is clear what changes are amde and when
and if they apply re-troactively or not.


>    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?
> 
>