Re: Proposed New Note Well

Mark Nottingham <> Mon, 04 January 2016 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FD01AC3D9 for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:45:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MoNdhQaC1qiG for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 474881AC3D8 for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C00E322E261 for <>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:45:53 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:45:50 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 21:45:57 -0000


The only thing that made me wonder is the fuzzy scope of "the discussion" in bullet #2; is that discussion specifically covered by that patent, or the whole draft, or the whole WG, or...?


> On 5 Jan 2016, at 2:41 am, IESG Secretary <> wrote:
> The IESG and the IAOC legal team have worked together to propose a new version for the note well that is used in various IETF activities. The intent is to make the note well shorter and more readable, and point more clearly to the full documentation of the various rules.
> The current note well is available at and the proposed new one is below.
> The IESG will make a decision about this matter shortly. Please provide comments, if any, to or to the IESG at before January 30, 2016.
> ———
> Note Well
> This summary does not contain all the details and is only meant to point you in the right direction. Exceptions may apply. The IETF's patent policy and the definition of an IETF "contribution" are set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully.
> The brief summary:
> • By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes and policies.
> • If you are aware that any contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications that are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit you or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the discussion.
> • As a participant in any IETF activity you acknowledge that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public, and that recordings of you or your likeness, voice and conduct at the recorded event may be displayed, transmitted, copied, used and promoted in electronic and physical media accessible throughout the world.
> • Personal information that you provide to IETF will be handled in accordance with the IETF Privacy Statement set.
> For further information, talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or review the following:
> ​
> BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process)
> ​BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes)
> ​BCP 78 (on copyright in IETF documents)
> ​BCP 79 (on patents covering IETF documents)
> TBD (on IETF Privacy Statement)

Mark Nottingham