Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 5/24/12 5:10 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> At 15:01 24-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Even if a document is mentioned in a charter as a likely starting point,
>> the chairs still need to make an explicit call for adoption of that
>> document as a WG item.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> The slides and audio are part of the record.
> 
> The audio seemed like a grey area to me.  I'll keep that discussion for
> another day.
> 
>> Naturally it would be best if the disclosure were explicitly called out
>> in the minutes, as well. However, I agree with you that a formal
>> disclosure is always best. Let me chat about this with Tim.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> > What we were are looking for here is whether there are any claims.  The
>> > easy path is to remove the sentence and keep the IPR question for the
>> > follow-up question.
>>
>> Now your wording is not clear to me. What do you mean by "the follow-up
>> question"?
> 
> The possible steps are:
> 
>   1. Reminder checks whether there are claims of IPR that needs
>      to be disclosed
> 
>   2. Someone mentions a claim
> 
>   3. Ask the WG whether they are ok given the new information
> 
>   4. consensus call on the technical work
> 
> Step 3 is the follow-up question.  I consider it as separate as what is
> being asked of the WG participant is not clear.  Some guidance is needed
> so participants know what they are being asked to do or what they can
> say (see past OAUTH thread as an example).

Got it. Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/