Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

Peter Saint-Andre <> Fri, 22 June 2012 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6497821F870A; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.462
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AWJBXpBAp+9B; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA9221F8713; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93F7F40092; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:03:40 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:45:58 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120601 Thunderbird/13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
Subject: Re: Proposed Update to Note Well
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
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: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:46:05 -0000

On 6/22/12 9:27 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> You're right on both counts. So (and addressing Randy's concern):
>>   Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or
>>   informally, either at an IETF meeting or in another IETF venue
>>   such as a mailing list, is an IETF contribution.  If you believe
>>   that any contribution of yours is covered by a patent or patent
>>   application controlled by you or an organization with which you
>>   are affiliated, you must disclose it or arrange for that
>>   organization to disclose it.
> While I like the words, I'll note that we have now about doubled the
> length from the version we started this thread with.  Remember that
> the point was to have it be *very* brief, something that we can
> reasonable expect people to read on the screen, and chairs to read
> aloud in meetings without its sounding like the disclaimer on a
> pharmaceutical advert.  And remember that it's not meant to tell you
> everything you need to know, ever -- only to remind you of the
> significant point, and to refer you elsewhere for details.
> Given that, does the community really want this version?  Does the
> community think it will meet those needs, and that it will really work
> to be read aloud in roughly 40 sessions a day for five days?

Lawyers and spec writers are not known for brevity. :)

Here's something really short:

   By participating here, you agree to follow IETF processes.

   If you actively contribute and you believe that what you
   contribute is controlled by patents, you need to disclose that.

   You understand that meetings might be recorded and broadcast.

Then just point to a longer version for everything else.


Peter Saint-Andre