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

joel jaeggli <> Sun, 03 April 2016 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214E712D0BE for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HHbPNj7htQmA for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31C8412D1AA for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-2.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u332uvf6068032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 3 Apr 2016 02:57:01 GMT (envelope-from
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: Scott Bradner <>, Gonzalo Camarillo <>
References: <> <> <>
From: joel jaeggli <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 23:56:51 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MVKtDfJC6bKoxFaictgkBMc33qc1c1GIk"
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 02:57:12 -0000

On 3/30/16 1:28 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
> this was the (strong?) consensus of the IPR BOF

It's reasonable to characterize the AD as involved in the working groups
in their area.

I don't really find fault in the characterization of old 6.1.2 current

If you're aware of IPR meeting the conditions of 5.1.2 with respect to
work in your areas of engagement you disclose it. If you aren't you
don't. if you become aware you disclose it even if it's inconvenient or
later then desirable.

> Scott
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Section 1 (Definitions), subsection k says the following:
>>>      Without limiting the generality of the
>>>      foregoing, acting as a working group chair or Area Director
>>>      constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
>>>      working group or area.
>> The AD of a large area may not get to read all individual I-Ds or all
>> email messages sent in all the WGs of the area. We may want to define
>> this a bit more explicitly.
>> Cheers,
>> Gonzalo
>> On 22/03/2016 2:17 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> All,
>>> RFC 3979 was published in 2005. Since then we’ve gathered a lot of experience, and we’d like to update the RFC with that experience. This isn’t a revolution of the IETF IPR approach, it is mostly about clarification, better documentation, and recognising some other new RFCs and changes. But the document itself has changed quite a lot and structured differently than RFC 3979 was.
>>> Some of the main issues (such as how to define participation) were discussed in the IETF-87 meeting, but there are also a number of other changes in this document. Please give this document a careful read, and let us know your feedback.
>>> I am starting a last call on this document today, but gave a longer last call period to make sure everyone has enough time to comment after IETF-95 as well. And thanks for the comments that some of you have already sent after the document was published; we’ve observed them and will make them part of the feedback from the Last Call.
>>> The document is available here:
>>> Jari Arkko (as the responsible AD for this document)