On 10/14/15 11:17 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:53:11AM -0400, Brian Haberman wrote: >> On 10/14/15 10:45 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:38:27AM -0700, Brian Haberman wrote: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Just a question on this draft... Given its status as clarifying (and >>>> updating) RFC 5884, does it also inherit any of the IPR claims levied >>>> against RFC 5884? >>>> >>> >>> All existing IPR stands. No new IPR is introduced. >> >> Maybe my parser is broken, but does this mean: >> >> 1. None of the IPR disclosures filed against 5884 apply to this draft >> >> 2. All/some of the IPR disclosures filed against 5884 apply, but >> disclosures have not (will not?) be filed against this draft? > > Since this document only clarifies 5884, the IPR against 5884 is still > applicable. The clarifications do not introduce any new IPR against the > material covered in 5884.
I wasn't expecting new IPR, I was wondering if any of the old IPR may have gone away. I know, wishful thinking. > > A bit more flippantly, just because we publish a clarification document with > no additional IPR doesn't mean we think we're getting rid of the existing > IPR considerations. :-) I have seen it happen before though and was wondering. Thanks for the quick follow-up! Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
