The IETF policy needs to be expanded for two types of IPR Declarations.

Folks
The problem the IETF and its Management Face is that the creation of the IPR
process is not well, and IETF document's are regularly published by the IETF
without any understanding as to what those publishing events do to the
larger picture of the IP and its license.

IPR Design Flaws
----------------------
The IPR page has some interesting failings and the one that is really
important is that it blends "forward looking license statements" not
particular to any specific or existing IP with actual IPR disclosures in
with real Disclosure Statements regarding already existing IP controls
making it difficult to search that IPR DB for actually important IPR Claims.

Here is a specific filings from the NSA that is properly
done: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/858/; and here is a filing that
is essentially meaningless - its a political statement about
events not disclosed and so it has no effect here except to
say that they intend to play nice. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/170/

This architecture of IP Process makes it virtually impossible to search the
IPR DB for issues which may pertain to an initiative not yet or already
under way inside the IETF. That is a failing which is unacceptable since it
renders the IPR Process effectively useless as too costly to perform
for each document filed with the IETF as part of a Standards Practice.

In closing, this "blending of useless info" with specific patent information 
just
complicates the practice and document's the lack of design forethought that
went into the IPR Page and its workflow processes.