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

SM <> Thu, 24 May 2012 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7101011E80A3 for <>; Thu, 24 May 2012 16:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkxGsxTVUJb5 for <>; Thu, 24 May 2012 16:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E5D11E8081 for <>; Thu, 24 May 2012 16:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4ONCBUt020935; Thu, 24 May 2012 16:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1337901137;; bh=1wlIsamDvVu/MIoKvvJn7lY+ZFTLG45x39iW1NEam88=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=a8emTV5AJtirGgVXTfoo3NMgI0iWEQWLH1UFfkbYkj+l1zXRTirnspVgJLOQLrv/v /FT1XgeTfxtn9JwnXVHGIJJj6qdfm1mmCv7VmhZ9vQ+apFJfjcHLIvz3BHH2AqCMrW lh0TDRx53BeANKYHaCkVFJLWkSVywG+AHGumxgCE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1337901137;; bh=1wlIsamDvVu/MIoKvvJn7lY+ZFTLG45x39iW1NEam88=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=0sOE+muICLzpoUHP8mKLiEp+O6xpdTkklSkT1r5+FpuxIbZeng2lc+pV0Tz063JTT o07sPgehoNCMG7oIwvcUFtVtwzni1x86/YBqFUeQvxPBOwqhcFmcYoGTagY/9OM0nO vPKBhS55UnlrtbAeYyuRPaAf4dJH2X3L1L+mquto=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:10:18 -0700
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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, 24 May 2012 23:12:26 -0000

Hi Peter,
At 15:01 24-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>Even if a document is mentioned in a charter as a likely starting point,
>the chairs still need to make an explicit call for adoption of that
>document as a WG item.


>The slides and audio are part of the record.

The audio seemed like a grey area to me.  I'll keep that discussion 
for another day.

>Naturally it would be best if the disclosure were explicitly called out
>in the minutes, as well. However, I agree with you that a formal
>disclosure is always best. Let me chat about this with Tim.


> > What we were are looking for here is whether there are any claims.  The
> > easy path is to remove the sentence and keep the IPR question for the
> > follow-up question.
>Now your wording is not clear to me. What do you mean by "the follow-up

The possible steps are:

   1. Reminder checks whether there are claims of IPR that needs
      to be disclosed

   2. Someone mentions a claim

   3. Ask the WG whether they are ok given the new information

   4. consensus call on the technical work

Step 3 is the follow-up question.  I consider it as separate as what 
is being asked of the WG participant is not clear.  Some guidance is 
needed so participants know what they are being asked to do or what 
they can say (see past OAUTH thread as an example).