Re: On not using (r) and (tm)

[Scott W Brim <sbrim at cisco.com>]

On 2/7/2005 20:12, Steven M. Bellovin allegedly wrote:
> The issue was made even more
> complex because there are recent RFCs -- see 3805, which is later than 
> 3667/3668 -- that contain explicit trademark statements.

I took a quick look at 3805 ... is a string in a comment in a MIB that 
looks like a trademark statement the same as an actual statement in 
the main text of the RFC?  I don't think so.  I think it's a 
completely different case -- it's about what should be in the MIB, a 
WG decision, not a question of IPR procedures for contributions.  No?

swb

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg