[rfc-i] RFCs and IPRs
sm at resistor.net
Mon Oct 18 15:30:53 PDT 2010
At 06:01 18-10-10, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>all IDs must include the text
>"This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with
>the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79"
According to the RFC Editor website ( http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html ):
"Every document to be published as an RFC must first be posted
online as an Internet-Draft with a format following IETF guidelines."
One of the structural informational elements in a RFC is the following:
A copyright notice with a reference to BCP 78 [BCP78] and an
Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP 78 and BCP 79
[BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by those
RFC 4844 borrows some text from BCP 78 for IPR about an "Independent
Submission". I note that there is no mention of BCP 79 in RFC
4844. Quoting the notice in RFC 5992, published in the Independent
"This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents"
>BCP 79 requires disclosure of IPR
>so I think that we do require IPR disclosure for non-IETF documents
>(and, historically, many of the IPR disclosures refer to non-IETF
It gets interesting when we look at the IRTF Stream as there are
declarations such as:
"If any claim of any patent owned or controlled by [name removed] or
its Affiliates is essential on a technical ground to the standard
adopted by IETF"
As usual, the devil is in the details.
More information about the rfc-interest