Re: Proposed New Note Well

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Tue, 05 January 2016 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83FD41ACE0D; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:12:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0e02JO66E3sV; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:12:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0732.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265821ACE0F; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (10.162.235.146) by BLUPR17MB0273.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (10.162.235.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.361.13; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:11:57 +0000
Received: from BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.235.146]) by BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.235.146]) with mapi id 15.01.0361.006; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:11:57 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>, "John C. Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
Thread-Topic: Proposed New Note Well
Thread-Index: AQHRRwZX3mjqiDgdH06pSnYhMm/fqp7rvkgAgAADeICAAAHXAIAACT6AgAAENoCAAA9yAP//jDSAgACnHID//4QvAA==
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <A01818B7-22DE-4119-A318-CF1D43E2B55B@stewe.org>
References: <20160104154102.1127.50621.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <568AC7FE.101@gmail.com> <6451D0B3-9B0C-475E-B178-98E9EB6FD7D9@sobco.com> <11ED7904-3309-4B87-B8A4-7C4663C1AC30@sobco.com> <6EC907910707D24C66FF601E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <B8C14BAA-699A-4890-9A1C-B227D07CC5B3@sobco.com> <568AE4B0.7060700@gmail.com> <97C32E1E-A828-4FA1-981A-CDADD66FB730@stewe.org> <568B0FBB.1020805@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <568B0FBB.1020805@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=stewe@stewe.org;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [50.174.30.183]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR17MB0273; 5:byvgjjbAKNj5jQsS4PM5DTIYlOUy32ch8TUyb0SRVjrI6IugTxmjs07HqI2CBOTITaqG7+5EkW9nydBq9cqX9MprzXguxdvIZq5JC9PZq5/uC/VlCNFos4zgvyGP05R30PkHEaSVQOuHfYUWxe+Mmg==; 24:iKWxNnb5y2VE2pQSJWiflfCcjeEbSbq76qR20guRM4yUU7kNjSq07Zks2yeZfs45lCLyyT4xm6rBExZymR80b2vDVkxY2L6poBycazhuT64=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR17MB02730CD4F2DFD0EA65051AF5AEF30@BLUPR17MB0273.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(520078)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273;
x-forefront-prvs: 0812095267
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(479174004)(199003)(24454002)(189002)(40100003)(106116001)(5001770100001)(2950100001)(2900100001)(5008740100001)(36756003)(97736004)(77096005)(50986999)(5002640100001)(5004730100002)(54356999)(10400500002)(106356001)(83716003)(189998001)(3846002)(92566002)(105586002)(86362001)(11100500001)(19580395003)(33656002)(101416001)(82746002)(122556002)(76176999)(6116002)(19580405001)(4326007)(81156007)(1220700001)(66066001)(1096002)(586003)(93886004)(99286002)(102836003)(5001960100002)(87936001)(42262002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273; H:BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: stewe.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <A25212CC7CCA7243B7DD340476D483E3@namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jan 2016 01:11:56.6410 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 865fc51c-5fae-4322-98ef-0121a85df0b6
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR17MB0273
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/JZkYbgnycPS62_qbs3EXGNUL9Gg>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:12:21 -0000

Hi Brian,




On 1/4/16, 16:35, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 05/01/2016 11:36, Stephan Wenger wrote:
[...]

>>If, after community review, the IETF at large decides that an extension of BCP79’s scope is what it wants, then why not put it in the Note Well?  
>
>Rather, I would say, why not put it in BCP 79? It isn't hard - basically it needs
>a one paragraph RFC (not counting boilerplate) to do so.
>
>"Section 6.6 of RFC 3979 (When is a Disclosure Required?) is replaced by the
>following text:
>
>   IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
>   respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly by or otherwise
>   benefits the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or
>   to IPR that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert."
>
>I don't like the idea of legislating on such a fundamental question other than
>through a BCP.

OK.  Jorge made a similar point.  I guess it’s a matter of taste.  I can go either way and have no strong opinion, but I would really like to see the privateering problem addressed during this decade (and you showed a way to do just that, while Jorge mentioned that even 3979bis is an potion--thanks).
  
[...]

>
>If companies A and B have a private patent cartel (a.k.a. cross-licensing), contributors from company B would
>be caught by this extension if aware of a relevant patent owned by company A.

A disclosure obligation is triggered for an individual when *the individual* is aware of both a) the patent is owned/controlled/beneficial to the employer/sponsor, and b) patent reads on contribution.  Right?  I think it’s absolutely fair to expect an individual to incur such a disclosure obligation.  After all, he or she needs to be both familiar with a third party patent (owned by the cross-licensor) to make the technical call, and with sufficient detail of the cross-licensing arrangement itself to make the call under b).  Looking around in the IETF, I think we would be talking about a very small group of people, all very patent savvy and with legal on speed dial.  The remaining vast majority is (probably blissfully in this case) ignorant.

>That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door.

Agreed.

>
>    Brian
>