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

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

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.


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