Re: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

--On 27. april 2004 19:51 -0700 Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> t 10:43 PM 04/27/04 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote:
>> I'm not sure how serious an issuethe race condition in the boilerplate
>> is  since I think someone would be hardput to show bad intent if the
>> disclosure was filed at the same time or within a day or so of the ID
>> being sent in  (Jorge maybe you can comment)
>
> Robert is most concerned about the file point, the fact of being out of
> kilter with 3668. From my perspective, the big issue is the fact that I
> might have filed and I can't talk about that. But we already had that
> issue.

I believe we decided most explicitly that if you can't even say "I may have 
IPR here", you can't participate in the discussion. That's the essence of 
the attempt to avoid undue influence by holders of submarine patents.

We DO have existing practice of filing IPR disclosures that say "Company X 
has an unpublished application for IPR that relates to section Foo of 
document Bar, please contact XXX if you need more information". Which 
complies with the documents, and serves an useful "heads-up" purpose.

Re the original subject of this thread (the race condition): This should be 
filed as an errata on RFC 3667. The intent of the WG was completely clear 
in list discussions (allow filings of IPR within reasonable time (days) 
after I-D publication), and the fact that the RFC does not reflect the WG 
consensus is a bug.

My opinion.

                    Harald

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