Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 13/07/2016 10:38, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Barry, Brian, et al,
> 
> This is indeed not designed to be a change of procedure. And we’re open to doing this in various ways, either as an update of some text on the appropriate web page, or as initially proposed, an IESG statement.
> 
> However, I wanted to say that we received advise from IETF lawyers that highlighting that we do not check or endorse statements in the IPR declarations more visibly would be useful, even if the material is already presented in the RFCs.

Understood. But surely https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/... is the most visible place
to do that.

    Brian

> 
> A few more follow-ups:
> 
> John:
> 
>> RFC 6701 explicitly puts WG Chairs and the IESG into the
>> enforcement business
> 
> 
> RFC 6701 is about the responsibility of contributors to make
> declarations. And actions if that doesn’t happen. It is *not*
> about the content of those declarations, however.
> 
>> (3) When I heard that the IESG was planning an additional
>> statement in this area, I assumed it would address the one
>> recent claimed development that seemed to be a loose end --
>> whether someone who is listed as both an inventor and a
>> co-author on a document can possibly claim to not have
>> reasonably have personal knowledge of a possible or perceived
>> interaction between the two.   I think current version of BCP 79
>> might actually be a tad weak there
> 
> There a number of different things we might have to do with IPRs.
> 
> Does bcp79bis (draft-bradner-rfc3979bis) cover your issue? If not,
> please submit an issue to Scott and Jorge.
> 
> That document is on our plate to complete (and mostly on my plate,
> Scott and Jorge are awaiting me for the next steps).
> 
> Jari
> 
>