[rfc-i] RFCs and IPRs
bob.hinden at gmail.com
Fri Oct 15 14:37:07 PDT 2010
On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 10/15/2010 3:55 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> The tools pages currently include a link to relevant IPR. For example:
> Yeah, that's the sort of thing I mean. (Hadn't thought to check for it; thanks for highlighting it.)
> I think it should be touted more, when present, per the recent changes for hitting the reader in the face with an errata flag.
> As for IETF vs. RFC, I'm sorry Brian, but I think this is a formal distinction that serves the general public very poorly in this case.
> If the IPR issue was important enough to deal with in the IPR, it is important enough to associate with the RFC, at the same status as errata. (Some will claim that it is, in fact, a form of errata...)
To put this another way, we don't require IPR disclosure to publish on the independent stream (and other non-IETF streams?), but I don't see any harm to in showing it as the output of a search if it does exist (e.g., as in done on the tools page).
More information about the rfc-interest