Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 30 March 2016 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78D712D1B0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YtPO9DYS6TFD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439A912D50B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (ronin.smetech.net [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385E5F24041; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:13:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h482ap16Bzuv; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:59:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-51-128-219.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.128.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91218F2402A; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:13:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <ACC702C9-C33F-4D38-B47A-8BC293D24621@sobco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:13:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DCA1B6AC-6221-4CF5-A726-E1E98DBFAC27@vigilsec.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <56FBF599.9080605@ericsson.com> <ACC702C9-C33F-4D38-B47A-8BC293D24621@sobco.com>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aBftBgTAJKOiqOVjpwFygLUj43c>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:14:01 -0000

Scott:

At IETF 86 in the IPRbis BOF, the minutes reflect fe following conclusion:

   Strong sense of the room that active influence counts as participation,
   but listening and watching does not.

So, one might argue that an AD can be unaware that a particular document includes something that needs to be disclosed up to the point that they take some action on that document, such as sponsoring it.

Can you point to a discussion on the other side of this point?

Russ


On Mar 30, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:

> this was the (strong?) consensus of the IPR BOF
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Section 1 (Definitions), subsection k says the following:
>> 
>>>     Without limiting the generality of the
>>>     foregoing, acting as a working group chair or Area Director
>>>     constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
>>>     working group or area.
>> 
>> The AD of a large area may not get to read all individual I-Ds or all
>> email messages sent in all the WGs of the area. We may want to define
>> this a bit more explicitly.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Gonzalo
>> 
>> On 22/03/2016 2:17 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> RFC 3979 was published in 2005. Since then we’ve gathered a lot of experience, and we’d like to update the RFC with that experience. This isn’t a revolution of the IETF IPR approach, it is mostly about clarification, better documentation, and recognising some other new RFCs and changes. But the document itself has changed quite a lot and structured differently than RFC 3979 was.
>>> 
>>> Some of the main issues (such as how to define participation) were discussed in the IETF-87 meeting, but there are also a number of other changes in this document. Please give this document a careful read, and let us know your feedback.
>>> 
>>> I am starting a last call on this document today, but gave a longer last call period to make sure everyone has enough time to comment after IETF-95 as well. And thanks for the comments that some of you have already sent after the document was published; we’ve observed them and will make them part of the feedback from the Last Call.
>>> 
>>> The document is available here:
>>> 
>>>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/
>>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08
>>> 
>>> Jari Arkko (as the responsible AD for this document)
>>> 
>> 
>