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

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 15 April 2016 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3AC12DD16 for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.786
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=h+jNA92r; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=zOnl8uvr
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id isKU1EH8_w9H for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDDD12D688 for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3FB5SBC006294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1460718340; x=1460804740; bh=tcGiLndMKQxt7PaRq8HBadvni11MT/0B5uJfpjStV1o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=h+jNA92rIE5BJgWFh3E1I0D6aGmhpVrlqte+bc6uAZIrpOU05M7qqpomwz+XjMUxm 0xZ14BJfLBZ3fKjwiVDFCgC8GlV+/uyfrpcs3D1dqiElr6i5cLNQ7EPsZCTeHUEFCo fJesIjpCapUeaIfs3qOsqgFcrWd2eDDGKz81lFpY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1460718340; x=1460804740;; bh=tcGiLndMKQxt7PaRq8HBadvni11MT/0B5uJfpjStV1o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=zOnl8uvr6hdcHoqIokITZtwKiTZ3sR8aPQMG4zB7caxR94XhjjQs1qNvVLMAGeQq5 7lDY4jm5jk6BNGHP005T1g+teyGGpn08KepD2zAcBAuwPb/jIc6OBXavnZYoMNDhCx nHeyScFbuft57vJMJzkcv5k4VqyvC9aNlcSGZE68=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:03:43 -0700
To: Michael Cameron <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
In-Reply-To: <36BAA6A693139D4BBCB37CCCA660E08A14FD99DA@eusaamb101.ericss>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:13:32 -0000

Hi Mike,
At 10:33 12-04-2016, Michael Cameron wrote:
>My response:
>We need to be careful not to place on Area Directors unreasonable 
>burdens and obligations.  Further, there needs to be certainty as to 
>what the obligations are.   The obligations imposed on Area 
>Directors to declare known IPR should be limited to those activities 
>in which they actively participate.  I'll defer to the ADs, but I 
>would think that an AD acting on a recommendation or advice from a 
>WG as to how to proceed on a Specification, without more, does not 
>necessarily rise to the level of active participation.

 From what I read, the duty to disclose in the U.S. "does not extend 
to typists, clerks, and similar personnel".

There is the following text in Standards Track RFCs: "It has received 
public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet 
Engineering Steering Group (IESG)".

In the last sentence of the text quoted above there is the following: 
"I'll defer to the ADs".  Would a reasonable person conclude that an 
IETF participant with a good understanding of the IETF "Note Well" 
defer to a typist on a matter which is important?  Furthermore, would 
an Area Director describe his/her work as being similar to a clerk in 
his/her biography?

Does the fact that an Area Director has the authority to share the 
responsibility for the approval of a Standards Track RFC constitute 
"active participation"?

S. Moonesamy