Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Sat, 26 May 2012 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 D2C2921F84D9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 May 2012 16:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJcB7q0S09Er for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 May 2012 16:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7200421F84BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 May 2012 16:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E058C20177; Sat, 26 May 2012 19:23:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id AE6964151; Sat, 26 May 2012 19:23:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
References: <CBC48C89.8671C%stewe@stewe.org> <4FBC113C.3050707@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120522233611.08d14c78@resistor.net> <4FBEAFC8.40703@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120524154050.09714b10@resistor.net> <4FBED16C.3080008@stpeter.im>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 19:23:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4FBED16C.3080008@stpeter.im> (Peter Saint-Andre's message of "Thu, 24 May 2012 18:25:16 -0600")
Message-ID: <tsl1um6h6h4.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 26 May 2012 23:23:43 -0000

I'd like to challenge the assumption that an explicit call for adoption
is required if work is mentioned in a charter.  Sometimes, if work is
mentioned as a possible starting point, that's true.  However for
working groups like the original XMPP, DKIM, ABFAB and BEEP, where work
was mentioned as a basis/as *the* starting point, the question of
whether to adopt the work happens as part of the chartering process.
I'm not sure that impacts how IPR is handled; in that case I'd expect
the IPR to be confirmed/discussed as part of the chartering process.