Re: Generic IPR Disclosures

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 09 May 2014 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2AF1A001A for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QNGRgc5CuX2A for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7FB31A0009 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s49G9x0p020068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1399651806; bh=SgRXHPgXoKam+GYaH31CS6CSslZkqhcPxsS5Fsp7ZFE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=eQZQHAlHokGEvb93Ai/piJ+rnUeA2fNnU2Ssot0S3a23mGgUX04gcIyxgKdxHAuyG 50djSmaa0IPLa2RvAKTfQjVdEzhKOY1sn0r3brDhHwTbzBR4mNzQVjg7oN82ReBveu p4fJ+qK+uqhNMscRF81mT2ngNXlS7JUHI1JlgJmY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1399651806; i=@resistor.net; bh=SgRXHPgXoKam+GYaH31CS6CSslZkqhcPxsS5Fsp7ZFE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VR4Q4N/DJ3wFOWiwDEdRxMZgiVM607UsC4NEYvEEzxsBHlfuLCt/w1Frn04QqF+0I bO+b/njnRYfDnVI9qyaWr6eD51LfXWWzDD3E8zlCG0Aa+2HmmaooEIc2EUF38q4bAs HhZrxUiq8cdXxR9ioKw+KzNrx5J1Zji1Gh39ym2Y=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140509073235.0c2ab368@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 08:11:19 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Generic IPR Disclosures
In-Reply-To: <E55049B41833A30ADBEEEDC0@JCK-EEE10>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140508112635.0b83b2b8@elandnews.com> <F0BF319A-75E9-47BE-8018-27F9C4EAA474@harvard.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20140508121030.0c166970@resistor.net> <C5D47DCFBE3D7F5F658C600C@JCK-EEE10> <6.2.5.6.2.20140508212826.0bd3f1c0@resistor.net> <E55049B41833A30ADBEEEDC0@JCK-EEE10>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/861qwIAx2i8Zr46AEH4xP325P5M
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 16:10:17 -0000

Hi John,
At 03:37 09-05-2014, John C Klensin wrote:
>Then, given the "obviously and logically" part, why are we
>having  this discussion?  Isn't it, at most, just and editorial
>suggestion that revisions of the IPR spec make that point
>explicitly?

I was not arguing for an editorial change to the IPR document.  I 
received a query about whether an IPR disclosure should be filed for 
RFC 7208 (the case is similar to 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1698/ ).  I thought that it was 
better to ask in case my logic was faulty.

Regards,
-sm