IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 09 May 2012 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9839911E80AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DepyZV3V+ZPH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A10511E80AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=803; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1336606894; x=1337816494; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tTteHNQRDq0er5dgr8v/Ae7T9pqBCtzWnuRIUM1s3f0=; b=inrygq3w4IR47e+yz3VR7QSs3MpGqLwdFaRWvTo4Owpdwchr/s7xkNaE W4TqThCLlXOi28MKZZlcBMgtc9eq9UzBE01OYT7Fie+OPVDz8+RaDOsN0 hq1wwP5dIrtC/YgdCbhGD/r8hQioJ7LcLcCCjP5kP9vrAdHNTLAVmD32u 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAK//qk+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEsRoBAYIcgQeCDAEBAQMBEgEnPwULCw4tC1cGNYdnBJszoA+QUmMEiGSNGYV2iGKBaYMH
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,559,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="41621402"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2012 23:41:33 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local ([10.21.75.243]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q49NfWFF032705; Wed, 9 May 2012 23:41:33 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Wed, 09 May 2012 18:41:33 -0500
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Wed, 09 May 2012 18:41:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509150640.090d7098@resistor.net>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 18:40:32 -0500
Message-Id: <AEFA3A3E-F672-4522-BCF9-5D75DC82D112@cisco.com>
References: <20120507215610.10679.15815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FAA140B.4010703@gmail.com> <4FAAD14F.40009@qualcomm.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120509150640.090d7098@resistor.net>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 09 May 2012 23:41:34 -0000

> I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue of violation without some sort of "burden of proof".

Hmm.

I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet another way to DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a violation that is worthy of the name, they should probably see to it that it gets discussed, but I don't see how they make that determination without having at least some data or report that can be verified. If someone in my working group brings such an accusation to me, trust me, the first question I am going to ask is "why do you believe that". If the answer is "can't you see they have shifty eyes", it will end there. I'm looking for at minimum that a named party has evidence to support it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email