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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Wed, 30 March 2016 22:21 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 D32DF12D533 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 I0U7J4ucHUrZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:21:17 -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 BCEF012D550 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9791A4D7F4; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:21:17 -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 B9MqMe9LP1Xl; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:21:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.16] (173-166-5-69-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.69]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AB931A4D7DF; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:21:16 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <36BAA6A693139D4BBCB37CCCA660E08A14FB54F0@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:21:22 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F9EB9111-612B-4070-A246-717541BDF7E1@sobco.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <56FBF599.9080605@ericsson.com> <ACC702C9-C33F-4D38-B47A-8BC293D24621@sobco.com> <CAKKJt-emtXkrujn6LkbCANg4NXQ+-80RSSch6zwk5NGOwauovA@mail.gmail.com> <2B7A79C2-4E79-472F-B886-0586DA52E46D@piuha.net> <3F01722D-D14A-44B7-BFF3-7CD68966C459@sobco.com> <BFEA880C-F7B8-4670-BB80-4C3502F9A7C8@sobco.com> <36BAA6A693139D4BBCB37CCCA660E08A14FB54F0@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
To: Michael Cameron <michael.cameron@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vPbVKNL0yd-lYTe1ZZOqGu7o88A>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:21:19 -0000

yup

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Michael Cameron <michael.cameron@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Respecting Apple's IPR, I think that would be "sigh, - Apple(r) brand autocorrect functionality helping again."
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:17 PM
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
> 
> sigh - apple helping again
> 
> s/reject/respect/
> 
> (although some people might believe the 1st version)
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> we were trying to reject the consensus we heard but if someone has a better way to say this we would be happy to use it
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Trying to take this into a practical direction.
>>> 
>>> I think the current sentence in the draft is fairly broad, and doesn't necessarily match practical capabilities that chairs or ADs have, as explained by Spencer and others. The issue is, if Spencer doesn't read all documents on the other half of the area, or if Jari doesn't read all the documents because he delegates some of the review task to a directorate, how would we know what to declare, even if we were personally aware of IPR on a topic? It may of course be that once we read a document later (such as in last call or as part of a final IESG review), you may finally realise that a declaration is necessary. But, as noted, not even that is necessarily always guaranteed.
>>> 
>>> Jari
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>