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

Stephan Wenger <> Sun, 03 April 2016 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A84312D127 for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id er94fGv0t1LP for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 07:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF7D12D105 for <>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 07:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.447.15; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 14:33:13 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0447.027; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 14:33:13 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Alissa Cooper <>, Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Topic: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Index: AQHRhDTbKR9yu1RueEWA9RrAiHSISp90M8+AgANL7gCAAG3+AA==
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 14:33:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4d6975a4-2e20-447c-94dd-08d35bcce36a
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR17MB0273; 5:o5f/0TROaLWT4mCaSDBnzLfjBHE9fmy6zz1S/DxbsitdfQyd3SkytIRmOjd4GIOSl5Modj24fnTHeH/suqkbEX2Umjj/Sk/wYtdyRb4VKhN/aGS90fM7O0PcoRbmALgI1PDS7VXRbtySHBcEP2/+eQ==; 24:kZK2+HOQSPGKQfnxLj3DzJZR5KAj6AjOllihdhDYyjpox5394D67ZvPqbNB3bFlOgDSrLeNc/QCDz9vxAmR4tEoLIMkiY18koxFRpE810Aw=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040046)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041046)(6043046); SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273;
x-forefront-prvs: 09011458FC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(92566002)(3280700002)(1096002)(1220700001)(586003)(3846002)(5008740100001)(6116002)(102836003)(2906002)(10400500002)(4326007)(3660700001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(33656002)(5001770100001)(81166005)(77096005)(2900100001)(87936001)(36756003)(11100500001)(189998001)(83716003)(82746002)(106116001)(99286002)(50986999)(86362001)(76176999)(54356999)(230783001)(5004730100002)(66066001)(122556002)(2950100001)(5002640100001)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0273;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2016 14:33:13.2178 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 865fc51c-5fae-4322-98ef-0121a85df0b6
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR17MB0273
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 14:33:18 -0000


On 4/2/16, 21:59, "ietf on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" < on behalf of> wrote:

>On 01/04/2016 11:38, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 1) I agree with other commenters' concerns about the definition of "participating" with respect to WG chairs and ADs. In particular in the context of section 6, this seems like it could limit the pool of people who can stand for AD roles, because you're not allowed to participate in cases where you won't be able to disclose, but you have no idea a priori what WGs will get chartered in your area and what work items they might take up.
>I don't see what's new about this - it's always been an awkward point. I worked for
>a major patent-generating company while I was in the IESG ten years ago, and I had
>to pay attention to this. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I don't see that
>tightening up the language really makes the problem any worse. (However, I still
>don't see any need to state the obvious, i.e. that WG Chairs and ADs are
>participants, unless they recuse themselves on a particular matter.)

My feeling is that a WG chair absolutely should be in the loop of everything going on in its WG, and therefore should be viewed as “participating” with respect to any Contribution made to the WG or related to the WG.

With respect to ADs, I find Brian’s argument generally compelling.  However, I don’t know how an AD can or should recuse himself/herself from a particular matter in the sense of shedding his/her possible obligations under BCP79.  AFAICT, historically, when an AD recuses himself/herself, it was often based on too much knowledge and interest in a certain technology, with respect to personnel behind the technology, and so on.  In such a case, a recuse from IPR obligations of any type would not be desirable.  The more we relax the disclosure requirements, the more we enable gaming the policy by a “company man”--and that form of gaming may not come up until years after the person has resigned from the AD position, rendering the IETF’s internal sanction mechanism inefficient.


>    Brian