On 20-May-26 11:42, Scott Bradner wrote:
the ID says:
Other aspects are that personal or business considerations should not
affect accuracy and balance, and any hidden conflicts of interest
should be documented.
but not documented in the RFC itself - just like the no IPR statements in an RFC
Agreed. (If a stream felt that a disclosure of interests was needed, that would
very definitely be stream business.)
a RFC is a snapshot in time, we do want to let people think that all patents (or
business considerations) are disclosed in an RFC when some could have come
up after the RFC was published
do not support adoption as is
Obviously, if the document proceeds your comments and Eric's must be factored
in. But I'm not going to spend those cycles unless the Chairs think it's likely
to go somewhere. (So, Eric, I won't respond point-by-point for now.)
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
