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

["Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[e-mail]>]

"Claims" has a more legal tone to it than "disclosures".  And only IPR disclosures are registered in the IETF IPR repository (I believe).  I think there is a need to go through this ID to make sure the proper term is used at the right place. Thanks

Hung Ling

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:42 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt


> 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.

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

>    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.)

Thanks ... Scott
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg