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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 03 April 2016 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64AE12D143 for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 17:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id st_6KyN3kVyo for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D35612D12F for <>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e128so96304815pfe.3 for <>; Sat, 02 Apr 2016 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5vYaxF3bm7inYQhCH1OWZ4U7UVWRpLNDPHhNuUMIQSs=; b=EQFAHz5bHRuJTuAGoJKh7WtV8M1Au0YtghdPuw1TS2DyEAFfip0LBP9vPOJ6mwqjlq 0Gdgl3NfA16w0GN5rZGnCNGweOKghpfLcJ/ig0ubElmTprNK2WwDyV46WmFkcdhZnCyN xPW1a+cJNDQn25N2V4sX5lAi1sC4WKugZdivX3wvaSNchL/IGxfF0b/eFxZc71NixcTG NJ85pmWqN7dL8TDjP50QJ3X1/YL6R1YGXMcb6XOx2/zzBhZ8x/Z41CW0nOF+L5f5XNkh NZf/o9GO9XD1Xqvcwr0Ht/gwuB7VgycbSyBqq8jL86Vm4b89Sf54rv3arwfRNOmjIEzz BeiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5vYaxF3bm7inYQhCH1OWZ4U7UVWRpLNDPHhNuUMIQSs=; b=UTk9wYCwp27sCe0v3KYINcQLrkbf9ejZQNqo6qF8Fk6HmzUYXbuY61IgsQfyuwaL4h P/kOAmiRsNimiXqoVhupLiai9KXpSbwWamNtBH+RR7eABBf+XllZwjAgZ0bfavRZJCQm 0XEAwkyDq2SmfItQ47DzPnXpku6hD8kUCFMCcXyMdlKNcBwIr91Zlk6XTaH3EZ6sUQEe D2ezEk4LDYAvtVPn7wEA1Va5u+xD1HfHBwN+zNHDo5kbmV1rMvM16LddlaQbHLSR45Wp hxyzZnwz1IeAQ+FmVLkA7lhz6A3N1nTx0WukqX1Saa8wsUAC8Jw+DzF7h9MxVKuDmBTx X7KA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJXrNFAjp4Pdb1v8d/E5c/H7MpVIzZwXNMjPgoV900F2j6LWDlP2afKVJo14L5cAg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g23mr9539197pfg.74.1459645175892; Sat, 02 Apr 2016 17:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7971:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7971:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id wy7sm31614446pab.5.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 02 Apr 2016 17:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: Alissa Cooper <>, Jari Arkko <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 12:59:30 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 00:59:38 -0000

On 01/04/2016 11:38, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 1) I agree with other commenters' concerns about the definition of "participating" with respect to WG chairs and ADs. In particular in the context of section 6, this seems like it could limit the pool of people who can stand for AD roles, because you're not allowed to participate in cases where you won't be able to disclose, but you have no idea a priori what WGs will get chartered in your area and what work items they might take up.

I don't see what's new about this - it's always been an awkward point. I worked for
a major patent-generating company while I was in the IESG ten years ago, and I had
to pay attention to this. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I don't see that
tightening up the language really makes the problem any worse. (However, I still
don't see any need to state the obvious, i.e. that WG Chairs and ADs are
participants, unless they recuse themselves on a particular matter.)