Re: Proposed New Note Well

"Scott O. Bradner" <> Mon, 04 January 2016 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DC11A90B1; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:41:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.595
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YNmjwkW6ZuuW; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B9281A89FE; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9D711C503D; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U7x1cHSeZXx4; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 977DC11C5030; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:29 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:41:27 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:41:32 -0000

>> • If you are aware that any contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications that are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit you or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the discussion.
> Where does "or would benefit" come from in BCP 79? While I agree with the
> sentiment, I don't think it follows from our rules, so I think it must
> be deleted.

the concept comes from (for example) RFC 3979 section 6.1.3
6.1.3.  IPR of Others

   If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
   Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
   because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
   is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
   the IETF by sending an email message to  Such a
   notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
   realizes the connection.

i.e. the text is trying to deal with the case where you know of IPR but it is not “yours”

this seemed to be a clean way to express the condition - just eliminating the phrase
would, imo, make it harder to understand when disclosure is required - 
other ways to get the point across would be helpful