When is disclosure required (was: Re: Proposed Update to Note Well)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 22 June 2012 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8780F21F8593 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lDZqnk0GLrD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CFC21F858F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1SiCUr-000HwE-QP; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:38:33 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:45:00 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: When is disclosure required (was: Re: Proposed Update to Note Well)
Message-ID: <33E84E0F92B159A542ECE3DD@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAedCTLOgL+d9WG45ykR2_zmi9x-aZycc8OmPnebDfExw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP0PwYYfBtgGifZVi287JmAWxMm2Rr3jAUg8-BKOKMjskRo47w@mail.gmail.com> <1CC7E58691B04ECDB9D4CE5340072A03@XeonAL> <CAP0PwYa+7F2Y5xotdFTZ4LRGtKWku_DPfdhZWE_RP6REDQEu=A@mail.gmail.com> <50404A860941E07881DF8EEA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAC4RtVAedCTLOgL+d9WG45ykR2_zmi9x-aZycc8OmPnebDfExw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Robin Uyeshiro <uyeshiro@ifa.hawaii.edu>, IETF <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: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:45:18 -0000

(subject changed, since we seem to be in agreement about the
Note Well issues)

--On Saturday, June 23, 2012 00:09 +0200 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> I do jot agree with what John says below.  Look at Section 6.6
> of RFC 3979, where it talks abou who owns the IPR.  In the
> case given below, the participant no longer owns the IPR,
> directly or indirectly.  It's owned by company X.  The
> participant is, thus, encouraged to file a third-party
> disclosure, but nothing is required.

Ok.  Not how I remembered the intent, but that is clearly what
it says.   I do think it creates a gaping loophole for a
company/organization that wanted to subvert the rules, but so it

> That said, I, as John, think none of that matters for this
> brief "sound bite".  I think this should say nothing more than
> that if you know about relevant IPR you or your employer have
> to disclose.  The "ifs, ands, and buts," and any other
> qualifications should be left for the details part.