Re: Proposed New Note Well

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Mon, 04 January 2016 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399311A90C8; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 pVlQPsD3-muM; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:07 -0800 (PST)
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 678841A90C7; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941E511C51EC; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:48:06 -0500 (EST)
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 a-kksfQ-7ER0; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:48:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D01C11C51E0; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:48:05 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6451D0B3-9B0C-475E-B178-98E9EB6FD7D9@sobco.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:48:02 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <11ED7904-3309-4B87-B8A4-7C4663C1AC30@sobco.com>
References: <20160104154102.1127.50621.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <568AC7FE.101@gmail.com> <6451D0B3-9B0C-475E-B178-98E9EB6FD7D9@sobco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/siM5kgSCdPlemAhF0IrpAD_oxcc>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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 Jan 2016 19:48:08 -0000

ps - stated better in RFC 3979 sec 6.6

6.6.  When is a Disclosure Required?

   IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
   respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
   individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
   persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.


> On Jan 4, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> • If you are aware that any contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications that are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit you or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the discussion.
>> 
>> Where does "or would benefit" come from in BCP 79? While I agree with the
>> sentiment, I don't think it follows from our rules, so I think it must
>> be deleted.
> 
> the concept comes from (for example) RFC 3979 section 6.1.3
> 6.1.3.  IPR of Others
> 
>   If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
>   Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
>   because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
>   is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
>   the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr@ietf.org.  Such a
>   notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
>   realizes the connection.
> 
> i.e. the text is trying to deal with the case where you know of IPR but it is not “yours”
> 
> this seemed to be a clean way to express the condition - just eliminating the phrase
> would, imo, make it harder to understand when disclosure is required - 
> other ways to get the point across would be helpful
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
>