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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 6/29/16 9:28 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:57, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> I wasn't trying to judge the applicability so much as the intent, but I
> take your point. My real concern at this point is that the working group
> has the opportunity to decide how to proceed.

yeah, I think that applies to any form of late breaking change of
significance.

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