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

Michael Cameron <> Wed, 30 March 2016 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2182212D1CE for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U2Fhx_6AgFF5 for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886C212D0FD for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79fa6d0000057a9-b7-56fc5111c6ba
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 24.61.22441.1115CF65; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 00:20:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:20:37 -0400
From: Michael Cameron <>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <>, Jari Arkko <>
Subject: RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Topic: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Index: AQHRiqE9sHDDxebvOUyZe9BZf9E4A59yd1EAgAAWVfiAAEPhgP//vXdA
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:20:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHW1cw8E+YwY1HNhbPNs5nsZixbwWb xfFOZQdmjyVLfjJ5bF0ync3jxYFvzAHMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZi7d1sRS84an4vns7cwPj fK4uRk4OCQETiZnNK9kgbDGJC/fWA9lcHEICRxkl9mx7yAjhLGeU+PvvGnMXIwcHG1DH82cs IA0iAp4S3x70gdnMAsoSTzfNYQKxhQXyJe7f6GWFqCmQOP/3IFS9m8THJ03MIDaLgKpEy9Y3 YDW8Ar4S3w7egNr1kUli29bVYA2cArYS+24fBCtiBLru+6k1TBDLxCVuPZnPBHG1gMSSPeeZ IWxRiZeP/7FC2EoSc15fY4ao15FYsPsTG4StLbFs4WtmiMWCEidnPmGZwCg2C8nYWUhaZiFp mYWkZQEjyypGjtLigpzcdCPDTYzAyDkmwea4g3Fvr+chRgEORiUeXgXj32FCrIllxZW5hxgl OJiVRHhr7f6ECfGmJFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2KU5mBREuf99vFymJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNT qoGx4bLh9+0nki80rPl+xTH89ttAswSzG6usOxvcLZP3TzAyK4+/1lr29PibGoZIZZY9betY HdwPSaxJZlc8cnj+xrff8tZq8fosetty78ZGuerCuo8mgRmuNoziN36/FIi50CY8dWLqvZL4 K3nB/+LlhGrrFXOCYnfPqviye/K3+k+OCmcnFk5TYinOSDTUYi4qTgQAR2iAoJgCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:20:45 -0000

Respecting Apple's IPR, I think that would be "sigh, - Apple(r) brand autocorrect functionality helping again."

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:17 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

sigh - apple helping again


(although some people might believe the 1st version)


> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Scott O. Bradner <> wrote:
> we were trying to reject the consensus we heard but if someone has a better way to say this we would be happy to use it
> Scott
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Jari Arkko <> wrote:
>> Trying to take this into a practical direction.
>> I think the current sentence in the draft is fairly broad, and doesn't necessarily match practical capabilities that chairs or ADs have, as explained by Spencer and others. The issue is, if Spencer doesn't read all documents on the other half of the area, or if Jari doesn't read all the documents because he delegates some of the review task to a directorate, how would we know what to declare, even if we were personally aware of IPR on a topic? It may of course be that once we read a document later (such as in last call or as part of a final IESG review), you may finally realise that a declaration is necessary. But, as noted, not even that is necessarily always guaranteed.
>> Jari