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

Stephan Wenger <> Sat, 09 June 2012 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BFD11E81B4 for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.027
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.428, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mhVoImQe9x9g for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D212F11E8163 for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:51:35 +0000
Received: from mail62-db3 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B257830059A; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:51:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -16
X-BigFish: PS-16(zz98dI1432I853kzz1202h1082kzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944he5bhf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail62-db3: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
Received: from mail62-db3 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail62-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1339203091170130_9207; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:51:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7AF2A0048; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:51:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:51:30 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.16.0164.004; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:52:20 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHNJvVjc3gJqOC7qk+8cEdjIpewVJbxh9+A
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:52:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:52:30 -0000

I want to thank Peter and Tim to take my comments into account in version
4 of this document.  I'm happy with version this version.

On 4.30.2012 19:19 , "Stephan Wenger" <> wrote:

>Here are a few comments to this draft.
>(1) Section 3.1, final paragraph.  An IETF disclosure has to be made
>against a Contribution.  In the case described in this paragraph, the
>Contribution may not have been made at the time of the Disclosure request,
>and, therefore, it would be impossible to make a Disclosure.  For example,
>if someone wants to discuss a technology verbally, you cannot make an IPR
>disclosure before the words have been uttered.  I would remove this
>paragraph.  Alternatively, limit it to "materials you plan to make
>available at the meeting" in the sprit it of section 4.1.
>(2) Section 3.2, "silence may be interpreted as a weak "No".".  This
>statement is IMO not supported by the IETF patent policy, and should
>therefore be removed.  Generally speaking, any additional burden to
>non-Contributors beyond making them aware of the voluntary disclosure
>opportunity IMP constitutes a policy change and must be avoided.
>(3) Section 3.3.  I would replace "author" with "authors and other
>Contributors".  Or "known Contributors", "prominent Contributors", or
>something like this.  It is entirely possible, and in fact not uncommon,
>that non-author Contributors influence the technology choices of I-Ds.
>One possible metric for identifying some of these Contributors would be a
>review of the Acknowledgement section many I-Ds include.  I see this
>mentioned in section 3.4; I would shift (or duplicate?) the burden of
>double-checking with Contributors to the WG chairs as WGLC.
>(4) Section 4.2.  Suggest to include Contributors in the spirit of comment
>(3) above.
>(5) Section A.1.  The email has a logical structure, but sometimes a
>logical structure may not have the best effect.  As written, people will
>probably not read it in its entirety, but will give up once its clear that
>it includes legalese.  Suggest to move the final paragraph "As FOO WG
>chairs" to the top, and put the formal justification stuff at the end.
>(6) Section A.2: I would substitute "Dear FOO WG" with "Dear FOO WG and
>especially authors and Contributors:"
>(7) Section A.2, third paragraph, sentence "We will not be able to advance
>this document to the next stage until we have received a reply from each
>author and listed contributor."  If this sentence starts appearing with
>some consistency in IETF WGs, then we have a de-facto policy change
>(requiring affirmative negative declarations).  Suggest to soften the
>language: "we may not be able to advance" or "it does not appear to be
>sensible to us to advance"
>(8) Section A.2, fourth paragraph: I would express this along the
>following: "you are reminded of your opportunity for a voluntary IPR
>disclosure under BCP79 section xxx.  Unless you want to make such a
>voluntary disclosure, please do not reply."
>(9) Section A.3, see previous comments (7) and (8).
>(10) Section A.4, see previous comment (7)
>(11) Section A.5, see previous comment (7)
>On 4.30.2012 18:27 , "The IESG" <> wrote:
>>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>>the following document:
>>- 'Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
>>   Disclosure Rules'
>>  <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> as Informational RFC
>>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> mailing lists by 2012-05-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>sent to instead. In either case, please retain the
>>beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>   The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in
>>   documents produced within the IETF stream is essential to the
>>   accurate development of community consensus.  However, this process
>>   is not always followed by participants during IETF standardization.
>>   Regardless of the cause or motivation, noncompliance with IPR
>>   disclosure rules can derail or delay completion of standards
>>   documents.  This document describes strategies for promoting
>>   compliance with the IPR disclosure rules.  The strategies are
>>   primarily intended for area directors, working group chairs, and
>>   working group secretaries.
>>The file can be obtained via
>>IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.