Re: Proposed New Note Well

Stephan Wenger <> Tue, 05 January 2016 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83FD41ACE0D; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:12:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0e02JO66E3sV; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:12:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265821ACE0F; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.361.13; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:11:57 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0361.006; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:11:57 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, "Scott O. Bradner" <>, "John C. Klensin" <>
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
Thread-Topic: Proposed New Note Well
Thread-Index: AQHRRwZX3mjqiDgdH06pSnYhMm/fqp7rvkgAgAADeICAAAHXAIAACT6AgAAENoCAAA9yAP//jDSAgACnHID//4QvAA==
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
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: <>
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;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: <>
Cc: IETF <>, "" <>
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:12:21 -0000

Hi Brian,

On 1/4/16, 16:35, "Brian E Carpenter" <> 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.


>    Brian