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

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Mon, 04 April 2016 20:47 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 0409312D645 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 axlF6x9bvBLQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:46:58 -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 7D29612D0A2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8167C1AD0344; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:46:57 -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 xGIqZFs6Dmme; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:46:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dhcp-891f.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [31.133.138.31]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2C9F1AD0323; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:46:52 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8491FE47-1152-4610-BE8F-CDC12CF38CC0"
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 Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <972C83CB-99B7-4278-9962-9AF67CFE890E@stewe.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:46:49 -0400
Message-Id: <1306B092-8C50-4916-88A1-0BC5F5FD51D1@sobco.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <56FBF599.9080605@ericsson.com> <ACC702C9-C33F-4D38-B47A-8BC293D24621@sobco.com> <DCA1B6AC-6221-4CF5-A726-E1E98DBFAC27@vigilsec.com> <56FC90E5.1050908@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVD3Pxm_vZgdCCgPgDwNfnYeKFJ5_Ys3QQPezrHzTGJE+Q@mail.gmail.com> <C5F35DA9-C530-4EC6-B175-C4B0A18872D7@stewe.org> <CALaySJ+1rvxXnXmLxk1UJ88t-e2p24OyMhR3f6P0peA5fLhRGA@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJKBrjKEdu-qd067Eb7A+nZFObB3TdwSV=od9GDjhDOecQ@mail.gmail.com> <972C83CB-99B7-4278-9962-9AF67CFE890E@stewe.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nZebJiMaquMCYS5eGVafmbCwEs8>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF <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: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:47:00 -0000

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 4:06 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Barry and I had a chat about this.  I also had offline conversations with Mike Cameron and a chat with Joel.  Barry and I at least agree on the problems.  The solutions are mine for now, and they absolutely are in need of wordsmithing...
> 
> Based on the discussion so far, there seem to be a need for the following:
> 
> 1. A clarification that an AD, by the nature of his/her office, regularly becomes aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call) and, therefore, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until such late time in the process.
> To fix this point, a simple explanatory sentence somewhere in section 5.2.2 would suffice.  For example “By the nature of their office, IETF area directors regularly become aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until such late time in the process.”

this does not seem right

why not say 
By the nature of their office, IETF area directors may become aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG review) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until they become aware of them.”