Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Sun, 27 May 2012 18:51 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 A66A021F849B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jsbasev1wSqg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446CB21F846C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79720203BA; Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 9C9784151; Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
References: <CBC48C89.8671C%stewe@stewe.org> <4FBC113C.3050707@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120522233611.08d14c78@resistor.net> <4FBEAFC8.40703@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120524154050.09714b10@resistor.net> <4FBED16C.3080008@stpeter.im> <tsl1um6h6h4.fsf@mit.edu> <F86376BB-2E7A-46BE-8ABD-E5005C01F1B9@vigilsec.com>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <F86376BB-2E7A-46BE-8ABD-E5005C01F1B9@vigilsec.com> (Russ Housley's message of "Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:16 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslwr3xe9up.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 27 May 2012 18:51:27 -0000
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> writes: Russ> Sam: I'm seeking clarity. Are you suggesting that the pre-WG Russ> mail list ask this question while drafting the charter, or are Russ> you suggesting that the IESG include this question in the call Russ> for external review of the charter, or both? I don't know; I haven't thought in that much detail. I'm stating as fact that there are cases where we adopt documents as part of chartering work; I've been involved in that as a BOF proponent and as an AD. I believe that it's important to consider the IPR implications then as with any other adoption. In the cases I've been aware of there has been no IPR. I suspect that if there were IPR that a WG would be much more likely to consider something as a potential starting point ((not adopted in the charter process) than as a basis (adopted in the charter process.) My personal opinion is that if we're diligent about making sure disclosures are filed prior to the review of the charter, the rest will take care of itself. I don't mind if people want more process than that, but I don't have strong opinions on what it should be. I agree with you that asking on the bof list or asking in external review would be reasonable ways to approach that.
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… SM
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… SM
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt>… Peter Saint-Andre