Re: comment on the proposed new note well

Jorge Contreras <> Fri, 08 January 2016 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348821A8A51 for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:17:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SbwqBdX7_iWW for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C9A1A8A4D for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q19so146101810qke.3 for <>; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 07:17:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Ld/SSRNp+xaz6xW0tYX/CXq5654Cc9tRQWRKc9Q1Kk4=; b=kK4VYw0ThM+0TQ8/MzhVwryTITscimebQG7vMXyrC/mlQX+iZ0vTBUiSDChoIucbhR LEBLRWqdapfBV/8f6XJDqTB2xnoDRB1tMY/dfzQve4hTAgPhA/OIkg4G5ij/rQFTViaD qHaksltAUxJRf7dtsyTKffBvaH9CxgF8lat9YNq8BlRTmRsuswMipSWTESqMDIKcMUHI cSIR8GnsrZOVuY3i7uPrJB1bRBGWzdLgIswAR/RWg9wWa+cw1einpZuI0/BJK8JyrAtm xIBuXg38wJ1XVEBBFKEu457YB/Mtja+rnIYX9QT/+qeekGC9hzJ1vTVXX+tNaiKOy6u2 y4jQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v83mr146798370qkv.31.1452266237089; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 07:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w140sm3644715qhb.37.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Jan 2016 07:17:16 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: comment on the proposed new note well
From: Jorge Contreras <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13C75)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:17:14 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Keith Moore <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:17:20 -0000

These are really comments more properly directed to the patent policy in BCP79. Please watch out for the BCP79bis document that will (hopefully) be released soon for comment, and feel free to make these suggestions then. 

As for Note Well, its language really can't deviate from the actual policy that it points to, so the opportunities for substantive tweaking are limited. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Keith Moore <> wrote:
> I think the note well needs to make it clear that the patent policy applies to _any_ discussion that might influence the decisions that an author or wg or iesg makes about a document - whether or not it occurs in a wg meeting or on a mailing list.
> Also, patent infringement is not a matter of "awareness" since it's a gray area.   And someone should have to disclose a patent held by his employer even if his employer isn't "sponsoring" his IETF participation.
> I would say instead something like "if you have reason to believe that a contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications that are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit, you, your employer, or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in any discussion regarding the contribution with anyone who could influence the content of the document or whether it is approved."
> Keith