Re: Proposed New Note Well

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 05 January 2016 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7901ACDC1; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:34:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 wcJSEoznkJn8; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 749DD1ACDB8; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id do7so4515935pab.2; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:34:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mUj7g6YFHuG3uHDqHMO8p0+EpmXT7TGsiBgRMgJWFUY=; b=BAa4ia2zGfDwm8BTxS1C1exyY4IscrMRFjQAKvs6DV6ycVnstyORDMtH7jt5YUYMTI 6CEmLTDoK5SRBCKPwp1EGwkGT7HnkJDa7DyuYNNndzj6qZxNdQgBQY5+OFyhTbjwBb4S +paiEU/vIj3BJgD6gAe6yXxK/wfHKO1cb707pfVuPAg+TwYQzFBsSNjQ9sy8t8rcmXYd B6cXb5z8UrePUj3E+xB3YuqdjnZnELO7J9ff1bq3thZRqA5QplM6SDx9EVVH84Adf5Qg /AVMVgddnbN6p68eAb/bwT5frGpVSnW04Jfxrb3tSJqoCDZ+sdQIK+ttgLdLDjhqfZhi XI+g==
X-Received: by 10.66.156.106 with SMTP id wd10mr130673017pab.150.1451954091086; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:51d5:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:51d5:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z3sm110037378pfi.69.2016.01.04.16.34.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:34:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>, "John C. Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <20160104154102.1127.50621.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <568AC7FE.101@gmail.com> <6451D0B3-9B0C-475E-B178-98E9EB6FD7D9@sobco.com> <11ED7904-3309-4B87-B8A4-7C4663C1AC30@sobco.com> <6EC907910707D24C66FF601E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <B8C14BAA-699A-4890-9A1C-B227D07CC5B3@sobco.com> <568AE4B0.7060700@gmail.com> <97C32E1E-A828-4FA1-981A-CDADD66FB730@stewe.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <568B0FBB.1020805@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 13:35:07 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <97C32E1E-A828-4FA1-981A-CDADD66FB730@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/b4oKNcoJ0pKgahUzrL1ZMCvmx8g>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:34:53 -0000

On 05/01/2016 11:36, Stephan Wenger wrote:
...
> IMO, the “benefits from” language extends the scope of what is currently codified in BCP79...

Exactly my point.

...
> If, after community review, the IETF at large decides that an extension of BCP79’s scope is what it wants, then why not put it in the Note Well?  

Rather, I would say, why not put it in BCP 79? It isn't hard - basically it needs
a one paragraph RFC (not counting boilerplate) to do so.

"Section 6.6 of RFC 3979 (When is a Disclosure Required?) is replaced by the
following text:

   IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
   respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly by or otherwise
   benefits the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or
   to IPR that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert."

I don't like the idea of legislating on such a fundamental question other than
through a BCP.

Note that this is not a trivial extension. If companies A and B have a private
patent cartel (a.k.a. cross-licensing), contributors from company B would
be caught by this extension if aware of a relevant patent owned by company A.
That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door.

    Brian