Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

joel jaeggli <> Tue, 05 April 2016 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DB712D55E for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y5vttooA5TPb for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23ABB12D106 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u35FLwl0094575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:22:00 GMT (envelope-from
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: Barry Leiba <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: joel jaeggli <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 12:21:56 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aDWBa7UQT3nPOImecqjkr4LNeejAVJ8dg"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:22:09 -0000

On 4/4/16 10:43 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> So, one might argue that an AD can be unaware that a particular
>>> document includes something that needs to be disclosed up to the
>>> point that they take some action on that document, such as sponsoring it.
>> Yes, but is that an issue? The AD is only required to disclose when
>> she is "reasonably and personally aware" of the need for a disclosure,
>> which will presumably become the case when she actually reads the draft
>> (or sees the slides that describe the technology in question).
> Be careful here: I think it is an issue.
> The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the
> participation.  If I'm participating in active discussion about
> Section 4 of document X, and I should be reasonably and personally
> aware of IPR my employer holds with respect to Section 3 of document
> X, we aren't going to happily accept that I didn't read Section 3 so I
> don't have a responsibility to disclose.
> If we're saying that, say, ADs are considered to be Participants with
> respect to every document and discussion in every working group in the
> area -- and I see why some people think that's wise and appropriate --
> then we're saying that I have a responsibility to disclose whether or
> not I've read the documents, and waiting until AD Evaluation state
> would be a late disclosure.  Consider that the working group might
> have been proceeding for a couple of years and many I-D revisions
> under the assumption that the technology is unencumbered... and then I
> dump an IPR statement on them just as they've finished.
> This really is a tough one: it would be nice if the late disclosure
> didn't happen, but ADs can't reasonably be expected to read every
> draft in every working group early on... and, as others have said, it
> would be very bad if this disclosure requirement gave us even fewer AD
> candidates than we have now.

Late disclosure might look bad, but we don't generally try and punish
people for attempting to correct situations that they reasonably might
be unaware of.

It is much more important that the late disclosure happen then that no
disclosure occur when one is warranted.

> Barry