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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Thu, 14 June 2012 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D481211E80F4; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yw8Erd64EsVp; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CE111E80F1; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99B6840081; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:31:08 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:13:54 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120601 Thunderbird/13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: The IESG <>
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:14:00 -0000

On 4/30/12 10:27 AM, 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. 

Tim and I received actionable feedback on this list from Stephan Wenger
and Subramanian Moonesamy during the Last Call [1] [2], and Stephan has
publicly verified that his concerns were addressed [3] (SM contacted me
offlist to the same effect). A full diff is at [4], but in brief the
main changes were as follows:

1. Tightened some terminology (e.g., changed "limitations" to "licensing
requirements" and, in several places, "IETF participants" to "IETF
contributors" and "authors" to "authors and listed contributors") and
explicitly defined the terms "formal disclosure" and "informal disclosure".

2. Clarified that this document does *not* define best current practices
but instead suggests some strategies that ADs, WG chairs, and WG
secretaries might want to use.

3. Mentioned that, if informal disclosure is allowed in a meeting,
chairs ought to capture such statements in the meeting minutes.

4. Removed a misleading statement that silence could be interpreted as
as a weak "no".

5. Removed any suggestion that non-receipt of IPR disclosures could be
interpreted by ADs or WG chairs as necessarily blocking any advancement
of an I-D.

6. Tweaked the sample email messages to improve their readability and
better align with the body of the document.