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

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[e-mail]> writes:

    John> Ok, Sam,

    John> How do you feel about documents created in a group with some
    John> other name, even if all the participants are active in the
    John> IETF, creating an implementation or two, and then bringing the
    John> spec to the IETF and saying "standardize this, but the spec is
    John> fully-baked and deployed so you can't change it much without a
    John> lot of justification"?  We've seen that happen multiple times.
    John> IMO, most of them were for other reasons but, if someone has
    John> bad intentions toward the IETF disclosure rules, that is the
    John> obvious mechanism for them to use and it results in much later
    John> disclosure than you would like, with no IETF ability to claim
    John> that people were obligated to disclose earlier.

I'm much more comfortable with this actually.  See, I know that if I
participate in such an effort I'm not working under IETF IPR rules.
Again for me, especially when I'm contributing as an individual rather
than being funded by someone, it's a question of whether we're creating
a commons together.  You want my time, you disclose before you advocate
your proposal.
It's important to me I be able to make that stick.