Open njh opened 4 years ago
Using "hdradio" as a schema name might be problematic, as it's a registered trademark within the US, and RFC 7595 §3.8 says:
Schemes SHOULD NOT use names or other symbols that might cause problems with rights to use the name in IETF specifications and Internet protocols. For example, be careful with trademark and service mark names.
Meanwhile, RFC 5378 §3.4 says:
Contributors may wish to seek trademark or service mark protection on any terms that are coined or used in their Contributions. The IETF makes no judgment about the validity of any such trademark rights. However, the IETF requires each Contributor, under the licenses described in Section 5.3 below, to grant the IETF Trust a perpetual license to use any such trademarks or service marks solely in exercising rights to reproduce, publish, discuss, and modify the IETF Contribution. This license does not authorize the IETF or others to use any trademark or service mark in connection with any product or service offering.
IANAL but you would probably need expressed, written permission from the trademark owner to register "hdradio". Using "hd" itself may also not get around this, and futher may be rejected as being not specific enough. It's not too late to register it, but perhaps that is a separate action that should be done outside of this specification and that the IANA considerations in the document should update all the registrations to point at this specification.
Just for the benefit of the record, there was also a discussion about using some derivative of iboc:
as a non-trademarked, descriptive term to skirt around some of the above issues.
There was a poll where a number of people agreed that
hdradio:
was a better URI scheme. But the latest version ofETSI TS 103 270
(V1.3.1) was released in May and still sayshd:
.Is it too late to change now?