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

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg