Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

FWIW, I agree with Brian.  Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
approves and only then filing the disclosure) on a media type
registration seems particularly egregious but is, in any event,
exactly the type of situation the IPR rules are intended to
prevent.  Like him, I believe that the IESG can recind its
action on this basis without having to go through the procedural
clutter of an appeal.  In addition, if an appeal were really
necessary, nothing prevents one or more of the IESG members who
believe that they would have acted differently had the
disclosure occurred on a timely basis from filing it.

     john

--On Thursday, November 19, 2009 15:13 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> How about the IESG simply rescinds its decision in this week's
> meeting? I don't see any need for an appeal; if there's a
> prima facie violation of the disclosure rules, it's just a
> management item. Much less bother than an appeal.
> 
> Of course, the rescission would be subject to appeal, but
> that's another story.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> On 2009-11-19 15:02, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> 
>> On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of
>> application/3gpp-ims+xml Media Type.  On Nov 2, RIM filed an
>> IPR disclosure related to this at
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
>> 
>> The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
>> 
>> http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GAAAAEBAJ
>> 
>> and the related draft is
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-
>> body-handling
>> 
>> I will note John-Luc Bakker from RIM is an author of both the
>> patent and  and the draft. The draft has been widely
>> discussed at IETF with no mention of IPR before this. As an
>> IESG member, I was not aware of this IPR at the time the
>> approval was made and I do not believe any other IESG members
>> were aware of it. I do believe the discussion would have been
>> different had the IESG been aware of this IPR.
>> 
>> If anyone thinks this is, ah, inappropriate, I would
>> recommend they appeal the IESG decision to approve this. (see
>> section 6.5 of RFC 2026 for how this works).  An IETF LC on
>> this in the future would allow the community to make an
>> decision that was informed of the IPR.
>> 
>> Cullen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf