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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Wed, 30 March 2016 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 234A012D16B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O9ecfUDa-M3t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA8C912D0BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F415F1A4D620; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBATlisXLhWq; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.16] (173-166-5-69-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.69]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEEF91A4D60F; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:16:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F01722D-D14A-44B7-BFF3-7CD68966C459@sobco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:16:55 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BFEA880C-F7B8-4670-BB80-4C3502F9A7C8@sobco.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <56FBF599.9080605@ericsson.com> <ACC702C9-C33F-4D38-B47A-8BC293D24621@sobco.com> <CAKKJt-emtXkrujn6LkbCANg4NXQ+-80RSSch6zwk5NGOwauovA@mail.gmail.com> <2B7A79C2-4E79-472F-B886-0586DA52E46D@piuha.net> <3F01722D-D14A-44B7-BFF3-7CD68966C459@sobco.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mHfhu6lnFAkY-IF5s0LurNVHpHo>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 30 Mar 2016 22:16:53 -0000

sigh - apple helping again

s/reject/respect/

(although some people might believe the 1st version)

Scott


> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> we were trying to reject the consensus we heard but if someone has a better way to say this we would be happy to use it
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Trying to take this into a practical direction.
>> 
>> I think the current sentence in the draft is fairly broad, and doesn’t necessarily match practical capabilities that chairs or ADs have, as explained by Spencer and others. The issue is, if Spencer doesn’t read all documents on the other half of the area, or if Jari doesn’t read all the documents because he delegates some of the review task to a directorate, how would we know what to declare, even if we were personally aware of IPR on a topic? It may of course be that once we read a document later (such as in last call or as part of a final IESG review), you may finally realise that a declaration is necessary. But, as noted, not even that is necessarily always guaranteed.
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>> 
>