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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 6/29/16 8:14 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 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...

It's not our job to judge the validity or applicability of ipr claims on
material.

You can draw your own conclusions as an individual.

I think it's responsible of the person engaging in third party
disclosure to have done so. that's about the only conclusion I would draw.


>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>