Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 04 April 2016 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A1E12D721 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHSfPqI9s4e4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC5CC12D72D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id g3so254921906ywa.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dSyB7w+gPYBZffNDOQLanK7cCsOm9BWYkgkbEhNUzok=; b=fIqeWX0XbdZwZyA13WLpBIMRj3T1Mp/ADINmENvD8U1ccVD4IShBRGKDvQrCHi9J/9 espfAGnMZ98o2X3aiXlZKNTL5NQDlOZKPPcleoY+DU00hovNjO0af7MZE2XeYNudigH0 ZBvql+DDnxagqDE3OGH62WDwsQwVSwP1dKcbgMQCuPZjD6Ha6qdg3Eteabv/qPR4lcK1 88DPpGmp/UinGfzB0w05h/Zhexzt2F4O+rXs2mmnQwKQNkiMNPHPySunOossMPoStbE7 Q1FtcTTdrFqkoUkdDMzTrMkQ2DPCcFlucDLjy7Hb2u8nRhEQ0H4iy9Ue/Zw2svgm5gHs 8haA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dSyB7w+gPYBZffNDOQLanK7cCsOm9BWYkgkbEhNUzok=; b=G3hLJkGCjYkFfTU1Ld10QYo5OhhVP01w6aepQqfMEMakKNg9WmFcm2OvP+xVBfpq3p C3FlNyIuiskpIr4kyTMtXmXlZuK77rN+4YXDtBPYVo3vSlQiNFlLc+FSthOQGPkFyWAD cHm/ClFXU/RBon6Yc8R6uAyYLe06ROp4ImmuvBzGKlhk92HcysFGaxuCoYCP7IAjfORv BgjG8mYq+az/x2DuUnPJ4a06wnAgOzanYgaudFYjAlJ3mw+2224Dr1Qhs/pBFv7odOuQ 33nqg7SOXiSNCKoz6KhrPF0PlYcAAA19nw3zoeu6dL+hgx5KcfsB8c8d9JLv7q+X2L8J SP/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLglTL5N77neKTUxbLqOD2VU/aje1Ou9Prrkwe9iF6NZZ/cwtQxGsdkCgiRygPkVG4B0dELreHrlodFuw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.221.140 with SMTP id g134mr10591954ywe.59.1459780747091; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.83.28.67 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+1rvxXnXmLxk1UJ88t-e2p24OyMhR3f6P0peA5fLhRGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <56FBF599.9080605@ericsson.com> <ACC702C9-C33F-4D38-B47A-8BC293D24621@sobco.com> <DCA1B6AC-6221-4CF5-A726-E1E98DBFAC27@vigilsec.com> <56FC90E5.1050908@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVD3Pxm_vZgdCCgPgDwNfnYeKFJ5_Ys3QQPezrHzTGJE+Q@mail.gmail.com> <C5F35DA9-C530-4EC6-B175-C4B0A18872D7@stewe.org> <CALaySJ+1rvxXnXmLxk1UJ88t-e2p24OyMhR3f6P0peA5fLhRGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:39:06 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pNKm7unVPOVVa1I1oZq-eNTgGUs
Message-ID: <CALaySJKBrjKEdu-qd067Eb7A+nZFObB3TdwSV=od9GDjhDOecQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0VANgZPXLFpuuM0KDj7E5x4QEoc>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:39:24 -0000

A follow-up here:

I'd be more comfortably with something more waffly, something more like this:

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a working
group chair or Area Director can often be considered "Participating"
in all activities of the relevant working group or area; as such,
working group chairs and Area Directors are expected to make a best,
good-faith effort to carry out the responsibilities of Participants.

Or perhaps we want to separate WGCs from ADs here, and the text needs
more work in any case, but I hope people see the general point.

Barry

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>>>The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the
>>>participation.
>>
>> I think this is incorrect.
>>
>> According to section 5.1.2 (disclosure requirement based on
>> Participation, not own IPR), a disclosure obligation exists if “the
>> Participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover that
>> Contribution”.  I don’t think anyone could argue that an AD has a
>> “believe” in a patent or application he/she is aware of Covers a
>> Contribution when he has never seen the Contribution.
>
> Would you accept "I didn't read the draft" as an acceptable reason
> that someone engaged in active discussion on a draft didn't disclose?
>
> We don't have different levels of Contributor here.  Someone making a
> Contribution has an obligation to disclose, even if s/he was one of
> those who said, "I didn't read the draft, but...."  If we declare the
> ADs to be Contributors, why does the same not apply to them?
>
>> A late disclosure is better than no disclosure
>
> I hope we all agree on that!
>
>> clearly, an AD
>> has a much better justification of making such a late disclosure.  I
>> would hope that no one would complain if an AD makes a late disclosure
>> and, when asked for the reason of lateness, he says “I was not
>> responsible AD; I came across this during final review in IETF last
>> call, and just identified this. “  In fact, people should appreciate
>> this.
>
> Maybe so, but as it stands now in the document, it's still a late
> disclosure, and there might still be backlash, legal concerns by
> employers, and reluctance to put people in that position.
>
> If that's the consensus, then there we have it... but I think we
> should be very careful about unintended consequences of this one.
>
> Barry