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

John C Klensin <> Fri, 25 March 2016 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8E212D6D6 for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JuNk8Dm8noXP for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA6E12D569 for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1ajYOh-0005Sd-5f; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:31:55 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:31:50 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Russ Housley <>, Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:31:59 -0000

--On Saturday, March 26, 2016 08:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:

> It's clear that any design team *output* is a contribution.
> But if a group of friends have a chat over lunch, not as a
> design team mandated by WG chairs, and one of them mentions a
> silly idea that is rejected in favour of a good idea that the
> group later proposes to the WG, is that silly idea a
> contribution? I don't think so.

+1.  But what makes that output a Contribution is its injection
into the IETF process as an I-D, a WG discussion, a comment at a
plenary microphone, or mention on an IETF-related mailing list.
All of those are clearly Contributions even under 3979 and its

> All the same, I think the phrase "IETF-sanctioned" is
> redundant. A citation of RFC 2418 would be in order, perhaps.

Remember that we have a significant number of documents,
standards-track and otherwise, that do not come out of WGs and
that we have traditionally wanted to be covered by IPR
disclosure rules.   2418, AFAICT, is only about WGs.