Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

> Thanks for comments.
>
> On Fri, 9 May 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > I like this thinking - and once we get the IPR claims into a database so
> > that it's mechanical to generate "the list of all IPR claims known to
> > pertain to this document set", it shouldn't add that much overhead
either.
>
> Indeed, a repository change would make this much easier.
>
> > (I wouldn't want to be responsible for doing it today....)
>
> Yes, it's a bit difficult, but if you know the draft(s), doing a grep in
> the IPR repository index and subdirectories should give you a rather good
> reassurance on this.

This is too much work for the IETF to have to maintain, further if you are
maintaining it and any of its wrong - you get this liability.

>
> > One comment:
> >
> > > http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt
> >
> > The document says:
> >
> >    If claims arrive during or after the last call period, prior to the
> >    approval of the document, a new last call should be announced.
> >
> > some issues with this one:
> >
> > - if the new last call resets the clock, it makes the process take
longer
> > (especially for individuals, which get 4-week Last Calls)
>
> Yep.  But then again, the IPR should be known in advance already, and more
> importantly, it seems to generally take much longer than 4 weeks to get an
> IPR statement filed and the terms/applicability worked out.  So it seems
> to me that additional 4 weeks is not a problem, as long as it isn't used
> as DoS mechanism for unnecessary delay (for which reason there would seem
> to be some safeguards against it).
>
> > - if claims arrive after Last Call expiry, but before IESG approval,
they
> > won't get noticed by the community
>
> I'm not sure if you misread or I miswrote (and now misread), but the
> intent was that if a claim arrives after LC expiration but before IESG
> approval, they will get noticed by the community in the form of a new last
> call, and the community has a new chance to comment of the document.
>
> > I suggest instead:
> >
> >   If claims are filed after the beginning of the Last Call, but before
> >   IESG disposition of the document, and less than four weeks after the
> >   end of the Last Call, the filing of the claim is announced
> >   using the same method as for the Last Call.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here .. announced by the IESG or ..?
>
> >   If claims are filed more than four weeks after the end of the Last
Call,
> >   but the IESG has not yet made final disposition of the document, a new
> >   Last Call MUST be made before the IESG makes its final disposition.
>
> I think this should already be covered.
>
> ...
>
> Note that you're here saying "claims are filed" rather than "claims
> arrive".
>
> By my using the latter, I meant to include e.g. Mr Doe from Foo company
> saying on an IETF list "we have a patent this on this", but not yet filing
> it in the repository.  (This would also include other statements which
> make it apparent there are very likely some IPR considerations.)
>
> Was your usage intentional?
>
> > (the "four weeks" is a tunable parameter - I just picked a value)
> > In the case I hope to be normal some time in the future (optimist!), the
> > first paragraph should be enough to inform the community and the IESG
about
> > the IPR issues.
>
> I don't understand "the IESG" part here, so we must have different
> underlying assumptions.  Are you assuming that the person filing IPR
> claims would use IETF-announce to announce a new claim on
> under-disposition document?
>
> > In the case of documents returned to the WG by the IESG for working out
> > issues found in Last Call or IESG review, this often takes quite a bit
of
> > time, so reissuing the Last Call when it comes around again is a
reasonable
> > way to notify the community of changed IPR filings. Adds another 2 or 4
> > weeks to the clock, but if we're more than 4 weeks delayed already, this
> > might not be too critical.
>
> I totally agree here.  Such a last call, if one would not do it otherwise,
> could indicate that the primary reason for the new LC is newly surfaced
> IPR, to make it clearer to the readers.
>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg