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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 31 March 2016 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 80E0412D1DB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 S41DD1TBM2rN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9F8812D0B6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x229.google.com with SMTP id fe3so55334755pab.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Bb7sT1xwhV1C0ecxvcDd7VwqeWpOZaut76Lpp10TGXA=; b=EE6a2vYc7h5fMvCrjlMtCP3gRdZCslFjObKPOoe2sa59jm/M5OcqKSH0FaoCDsbIcY U0gm7HgjkfUarHDuxjhtlCwhUz6Q0E/O+eUgFVxUEJC1fUcgjoFGL0OoSNzqozGQXLYm 0EvJvS6f09T96B74NLgb2A41Kx8iTAaThua9OUbvxW8PMYqhaGSdD13XE7PUAwf/bvxH zMdSLuYaZHpCwWyeaHMREItXrSR1JA00HrXiiFbmAN3ZZrw4qPqCrWzwcxJf2oDYe/wk 0SnRMbgezW5uAPnWyTSd5/A9niXzEy21BA84fghKJEPF69sNLX+Ei3aObGRG5Mj/2en9 q/hA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=Bb7sT1xwhV1C0ecxvcDd7VwqeWpOZaut76Lpp10TGXA=; b=VzPHxQSLbt6hk9BOq1PIgL4Yl3yPlxtXdb+H5tDjYcXGwVDdebkXcIrZpn030Sxqnm E3fpGgUUyNlmMlDJV7/RCXT79hnZqB8cAtSWlgwyQY6Agg2PRlBON1a+Iac2hugbL/U4 IH0/pAhS346j0KoISgXBzAwKoM1zUo0wRGbfHST5/Euajhc2+eP9VeB8x1jbATvkRmvC MLeB0dBtInUuhR8Osr3BRPXehbLtO9zyYkaVCm1E1QCFbtxZt/6UnYiPAIDAfVY7CHbt ybLVZZdNvLOauASPM/ahiyu+IVepM9VzW8AaNCHhVU6Vh2WLoKSO6yjRNrulGnQCiGgU LcKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJpZT2ivlmfF90MMuXziLFcTIU4FEtWCAGq01XwdD7vHDbDWXGwhnsAe41xkx+FyA==
X-Received: by 10.66.90.136 with SMTP id bw8mr18379891pab.52.1459392738342; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:705e:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:705e:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d19sm8912322pfj.92.2016.03.30.19.52.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Scott Bradner <sob@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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <56FC90E5.1050908@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:52:21 +1300
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: <DCA1B6AC-6221-4CF5-A726-E1E98DBFAC27@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oj7Mw3BSpBfndRJ6Rq2ofMuunPs>
Cc: 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:52:22 -0000

On 31/03/2016 10:13, Russ Housley wrote:
> Scott:
> 
> At IETF 86 in the IPRbis BOF, the minutes reflect fe following conclusion:
> 
>    Strong sense of the room that active influence counts as participation,
>    but listening and watching does not.
> 
> So, one might argue that an AD can be unaware that a particular document includes something that needs to be disclosed up to the point that they take some action on that document, such as sponsoring it.

Yes, but is that an issue? The AD is only required to disclose when
she is "reasonably and personally aware" of the need for a disclosure,
which will presumably become the case when she actually reads the draft
(or sees the slides that describe the technology in question).

    Brian
> 
> Can you point to a discussion on the other side of this point?
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 12:28 PM, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
>> this was the (strong?) consensus of the IPR BOF
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Section 1 (Definitions), subsection k says the following:
>>>
>>>>     Without limiting the generality of the
>>>>     foregoing, acting as a working group chair or Area Director
>>>>     constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
>>>>     working group or area.
>>>
>>> The AD of a large area may not get to read all individual I-Ds or all
>>> email messages sent in all the WGs of the area. We may want to define
>>> this a bit more explicitly.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>> On 22/03/2016 2:17 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> RFC 3979 was published in 2005. Since then we’ve gathered a lot of experience, and we’d like to update the RFC with that experience. This isn’t a revolution of the IETF IPR approach, it is mostly about clarification, better documentation, and recognising some other new RFCs and changes. But the document itself has changed quite a lot and structured differently than RFC 3979 was.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the main issues (such as how to define participation) were discussed in the IETF-87 meeting, but there are also a number of other changes in this document. Please give this document a careful read, and let us know your feedback.
>>>>
>>>> I am starting a last call on this document today, but gave a longer last call period to make sure everyone has enough time to comment after IETF-95 as well. And thanks for the comments that some of you have already sent after the document was published; we’ve observed them and will make them part of the feedback from the Last Call.
>>>>
>>>> The document is available here:
>>>>
>>>>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/
>>>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08
>>>>
>>>> Jari Arkko (as the responsible AD for this document)
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>