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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>>The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the
>>participation.
>
> I think this is incorrect.
>
> According to section 5.1.2 (disclosure requirement based on
> Participation, not own IPR), a disclosure obligation exists if “the
> Participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover that
> Contribution”.  I don’t think anyone could argue that an AD has a
> “believe” in a patent or application he/she is aware of Covers a
> Contribution when he has never seen the Contribution.

Would you accept "I didn't read the draft" as an acceptable reason
that someone engaged in active discussion on a draft didn't disclose?

We don't have different levels of Contributor here.  Someone making a
Contribution has an obligation to disclose, even if s/he was one of
those who said, "I didn't read the draft, but...."  If we declare the
ADs to be Contributors, why does the same not apply to them?

> A late disclosure is better than no disclosure

I hope we all agree on that!

> clearly, an AD
> has a much better justification of making such a late disclosure.  I
> would hope that no one would complain if an AD makes a late disclosure
> and, when asked for the reason of lateness, he says “I was not
> responsible AD; I came across this during final review in IETF last
> call, and just identified this. “  In fact, people should appreciate
> this.

Maybe so, but as it stands now in the document, it's still a late
disclosure, and there might still be backlash, legal concerns by
employers, and reluctance to put people in that position.

If that's the consensus, then there we have it... but I think we
should be very careful about unintended consequences of this one.

Barry