Re: IPR disclosures for individual submissions

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes:

    Harald> The formal rules are reasonably clear: Once the IPR
    Harald> disclosure is filed, the responsibility of the person who
    Harald> knows about the IPR is over.
Understood.  I was looking for informal rules about what to do when
IPR is filed.

    Harald> There is no formal statement about who has the
    Harald> responsibility to notice that IPR has been filed and make
    Harald> a judgment about whether it matters or not; I suspect
    Harald> (using common sense) that this SHOULD be done by the WG
    Harald> chair before submission to the IESG in the case of WG
    Harald> submissions, and by the AD processing the
    Harald> request-to-publish in the case of individual submissions -
    Harald> and discussion should go wherever discussion of technical
    Harald> issues with the document goes.

Do you think that typically there should be such discussion even if it
is just "BTW, there was IPR filed but I don't think it matters?"  Or
do you think it is OK for the AD or WG chair to consider the issue and
decide on their authority that the IPR doesn't matter?

    Harald> But I do not think that there are words written down
    Harald> anywhere with this advice, nor do I think this is current
    Harald> practice.

    Harald> Note also draft-savola-ipr-lastcall; this was a proposal
    Harald> to tie IPR disclosures formally with Last Calls, and was
    Harald> discussed at the genarea meeting in November 2004, but the
    Harald> conclusion from that meeting was:

Yes, I was aware of this.  The desire not to call out the trolls is
one of the things that makes this hard.

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