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

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 04 April 2016 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872A612D52A for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=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 vQu6jH53sUzq for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9141812D68E for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g127so253012465ywf.2 for <>; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 07:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FTrnpEC7Y28iLQ0UldhY7ALWbFWdMxMkY2g6Wdours4=; b=Xh2oC8X6+xmXj31Jvgw1y36P8dZgj2XkFZD3G2xEX93f5rDM3A0DTtsuCmv0Azvdav WWLhZIr1nRSN9hCTpOYvbwXuFJRA+gZY/SSzLzVMTyNp8TKL8/T84EB8v27gzHZr72m1 oyZwzEM4jb3kYhdjL2CoqJTpeREIKkRBHrDGZLX7Uml5yaYfgsI6WPHq08rEKMR19QOO xOqp2C/q7ZMqRVmqD1nutz8IFGAWqTb1zSNk43oDb+neL+lwjKk5xs8boFZEWwmV0+Yo gUmvnBMlXtFgWMcO9rMVq0pCpSaGKgV5hM8jaBuKnAVGIyuBsTfEOdXrsliT+oYE2TRw 6YPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FTrnpEC7Y28iLQ0UldhY7ALWbFWdMxMkY2g6Wdours4=; b=Qk+iI9CgKisq2EDJAhdUFG0JP1z/iLFwUejrKpdZpzWry8w7xObqOe1gf/zjF35ya1 5bMS0ZhZTtwg7Y7V6deMb3FXYaKnbnQnf/GlXqZrD87Gbhh40vMnDr1r+OkOzRjbAtQg BFed/5/0jdppWyo2ClPxEezT7CiJid3vUb9IXRF8hODbvcuqw6XY3//nw2mZOxHxYt6s /01TCAsUDLB8d7jMkDmG2FeeOK/FcNVDeoB6PejiLGvPexYDfUvYxTGpfPHkY09HfKc+ 8MBjSzyqnDVJUYukeZM6VyP0VukpUDO8bg3DK7uNA37+EuAX461KIi8721xiVk3kBJ86 /YvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKDJElnJEXo13KdMBncLq+v1WpqVUQPeO74o8tBHXkzywCst2PsM7nNsyB95vEgoaVgq5tMOFss7n0GLg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 63mr5557490yba.134.1459780043752; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 07:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 07:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 10:27:23 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: v8giCcW5lNkqDqvzJAL_UiasGMs
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Stephan Wenger <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:27:26 -0000

>>The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the
> 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.