Re: [alto] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:08, Ben Campbell wrote:

> On 29 Jun 2016, at 1:22, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/16 11:14 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun 2016, at 0:59, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/16 7:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>> draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15: No Objection
>>>>>
>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to 
>>>>> all
>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
>>>>> this
>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please refer to
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found 
>>>>> here:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-deployments/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a 2 day old (at the time of this writing) IPR disclosure. 
>>>>> It
>>>>> seems rather unusual, and I am not sure of the intent.
>>>>
>>>> they are third party ipr declarations and they are in fact the 
>>>> product
>>>> of reviewing the document:
>>>>
>>>> from the review of [e-mail] Carlos Pignataro.
>>>>
>>>> Major:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I came across two patent applications in which the examiners add 
>>>> this
>>>> document as a non-patent citation. The document has no IPR 
>>>> disclosures,
>>>> and authors seem to have responded to IPR calls.
>>>
>>> There lies my confusion. Why would a patent application that cites 
>>> this
>>> document cause an IPR disclosure against this document? Seems 
>>> backwards
>>> to me.
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#page-9
>>
>> 6.1.3.  IPR of Others
>>
>>    If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
>>    Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
>>    because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the 
>> IPR
>>    is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to 
>> notify
>>    the IETF by sending an email message to [e-mail].  Such a
>>    notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the 
>> person
>>    realizes the connection.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, my confusion is not the fact this is a 3rd party disclosure. 
> It's more that the fact being disclosed seems to be that a third party 
> patent application cites this document. Maybe I am misreading 
> something, but based strictly on the information in the disclosure, 
> that doesn't seem to imply a third party has IPR that may encumber the 
> draft; rather it seem to imply that may build on top of this draft.

grumble. I can't seem to type this morning.

s/... imply that may build.../... imply that the IPR may build...

>
>
> That all being said, this disclosure came in after IETF last call. I'd 
> be very surprised if the working group was aware of it when they 
> progressed the draft.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I will submit 3rd party disclosures for these now, there may be 
>>>> more:
>>>> http://www.google.com/patents/EP2913979A1#npl-citations
>>>> http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>