Subject: [Tools-discuss] IPR declaration goes poof?

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:20:19 +0000

The text below was a discuss point I raised on a document that
maybe turns out to be a tools issue.

RFC 3926 on the tools page doesn't show any IPR [1]
But there is one. [2]
The RFC3926bis draft [3] has a new IPR declaration [4]

I got confused by the lack of visibility of [2] and wrote up
that discuss.

Is this a case of the new IPR declaration messing up the
link between the base RFC and its IPR declaration or something?

Cheers,
S.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3926
[2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13
[4] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised

My discuss text is below.

-----

#1 The IPR situation here appears complex. This obsoletes the
experimental 3296 which has no IPR declarations. A common author
for this and 3926 is an inventor of IPR declared in 2006 on this
document.  Could I get a pointer to where the WG was informed of
and/or considered this?  (Had a quick look, didn't find it.) Is it
(still) the case that 3926 is not considered to require an IPR
declaration but this document does?  Reading section 11, I don't
see much change here so as a result, I'm unclear as to whether the
meta-data for these documents is consistent and considered so by
the WG.

So this may be more of a tools issue perhaps - if the new declaration
supercedes the old then maybe the tools page for the RFC forgets the
old IPR declaration or something. I'll keep the discuss so's we can
figure that out.

   http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/ is a declaration on RFC 3926 as
   it turns out.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:41:17 +0100

Hi Stephen,

> RFC 3926 on the tools page doesn't show any IPR [1]

Hmm.  That's not good.  My first guesses at the reason (which was
that the export from the datatracker had broken with the big
upgrade) turned out to be wrong.  I need to dig deeper down to
find out why [2] doesn't show one.

> link between the base RFC and its IPR declaration or something?

Shouldn't be so -- the obvious reasons I looked for didn't fly.

Will get back to you once I know more.

Best regards,

	Henrik

> _______________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:12:55 +0100

Hi Stephen,

So it turns out that the datatracker was now exporting IPR information
to me (through a dedicated text page) with all the rfcs indicated as
'RFCxxxx' rather than 'rfcxxxx' -- while the tools pages have all doc's
named with lowercase.  I added a case normalization of the IPR info at
my end, and the rfc page now carries the IPR link it should have carried
all the time.

Thanks for the alert, and sorry for the trouble!

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:21:00 +0000

Hi Henrik,

No troubles, glad we caught it though.

Thanks,
S.