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

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:
> > 2. General Last Call Procedure
> > 
> >    When last-calling a document, it should (WG last call) or must (IETF
> >    last call) be mentioned whether IPR concerns are known.
> > 
> >    Such a short mention should include at least:
> > 
> >      o the existence of IPR claim(s), and
> >      o the pointer to all the relevant claim(s) in the IETF IPR
> >        repository.
> > 
> >    On the other hand, if there are no known IPR issues, the fact should
> >    be clearly mentioned in the last call announcement.
> 
> Assuming that "claims" means "disclosures", I like this.  If "claims"
> means pointers to specific patent documents, I don't.  I prefer to have
> the level of indirection and abstraction in there that is represented by
> the disclosure statements/forms.

Agree.  "claims" here refers to filed disclosures or some other knowledge 
of IPR.

> >    If IPR claims are known but have not been recorded in the IETF IPR
> >    repository yet, documents must not be last-called prior to the claims
> >    appearing in the repository.
> 
> I'm not sure this has a beneficial result.  If someone has a claim which
> is generally known, but doesn't disclose by the time of IETF last call,
> they are already getting near to losing the right to enforce the patent.

The rule is there for basically to say "before you send drafts to the 
IESG, work out the IPR details".  (Perhaps this though should be more 
explicit.)

> However, if we add this requirement, DoS attacks are possible, along the
> lines of what eventually led to rfc1915.  

The below should give enough flexibility (the term "significant delay" is 
subjective: even a month or two could be considered one), IMO.

> So, I would skip this and go
> right on to the alternatives below, skipping "significant delay" as
> well.  If, at last call, disclosure hasn't happened, generate a
> placeholder and let them be embarrassed.

Right.. but why not generate a placeholder before sending a draft to the 
IESG?

> >    If, after a significant delay and attempts to get the IPR claims
> >    registered to the repository are unsuccesful, the last caller can
> >    choose either:
> > 
> >       1. to register a placeholder claim, giving a pointer to the
> >          disclosure,
> >       2. to indicate the fact that claims have not been registered in
> >          the last call, giving a pointer to the disclosure, or
> >       3. not to proceed until claims have been properly registered.
> > 
> >    Such placeholder claims must be clearly separated from other claims.
> 
> OK.  (Nit: I don't think placeholder disclosures have to be "separated",
> but clearly distinguishable.  When I search through the disclosures I
> don't want to have to search in multiple places.  Right now the main
> search mechanism is grep.)

Right, thanks.

-- 
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