Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC

Sam Hartman <> Sun, 27 May 2012 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66A021F849B for <>; Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.349
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jsbasev1wSqg for <>; Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446CB21F846C for <>; Sun, 27 May 2012 11:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79720203BA; Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 9C9784151; Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <>
To: Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <> (Russ Housley's message of "Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:16 -0400")
Message-ID: <>
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 <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 18:51:27 -0000

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <> 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

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.