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

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

On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:57, 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.


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