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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
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.
Regards,
Stephan


On 4.30.2012 19:19 , "Stephan Wenger" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi,
>Here are a few comments to this draft.
>Stephan
>
>(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" <[e-mail]> 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
>>[e-mail] mailing lists by 2012-05-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>>beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>>Abstract
>>
>>
>>   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
>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure/
>>
>>IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure/ballot/
>>
>>
>>No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>>
>