IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Late IPR disclosures

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Sun, 26 June 2022 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C692C15948F for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.785
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K9dJygczIB25 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx36-out21.antispamcloud.com (mx36-out21.antispamcloud.com [209.126.121.69]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C569EC15948E for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xse135.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.135] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx258.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1o5Hrd-000EuQ-BJ for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2022 04:19:09 +0200
Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LVvg85MV8z93v for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.5.2.17] (helo=xmail07.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1o5HrY-00060V-Ju for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:19:00 -0700
Received: (qmail 18470 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2022 02:18:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.200.66]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[72.235.197.84]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail07.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; 26 Jun 2022 02:18:59 -0000
Message-ID: <cc866bcd-58c7-cb23-c890-372032812603@huitema.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 16:18:57 -1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: Late IPR disclosures
Content-Language: en-US
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20220625135518.0e9050b0@elandnews.com> <5798bbd5-b127-92bc-597c-3c277c112816@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20220625150626.12412328@elandnews.com> <CAMGpriX3sNsh6ALHAUrr8N07FA-V--i-2LEkxkSoGrhpQ_8gPg@mail.gmail.com> <64e8984a-7507-0006-f8ba-29fa1dd1649d@gmail.com>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <64e8984a-7507-0006-f8ba-29fa1dd1649d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.135
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.07)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT+joMRIJnUcvbCf2djZnCSgPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5wu+uv5cF3fYBGdZHrulDE+42UuDhyzVYcwl2RB+0AaerIF IeBCrLpyetY2vhDHYA4h55uqY3MhMgFAHq5BxPxPXn36fLqvhISQ5ykyqUZqUd1jhnM/Mbva2XLV /LIEzaL2KoAZhJekBPedneT7f699u2BPEAedqNgxB0gXkYCZjYPAgTtUp75uqlx0KezvZHU8jaTA 4gvoN3cy3ZS3bc6iWQaaSSaRcFTFxaRvADgOuFdAU5fRzM/QzQW9/IoH33AG8ECuCwECazCwODtO F78PiyQEs+dlGXUJLWZ+Gc08Nmllke3azHdKmySKNUVQl4ntlVxnbS8qIO7oudHyb2T1VQ58xe/l rqiRGalI3YPsxOTrFXToVyBmRCgQVX6zVyFUu8qzeMQP6uTHL0d9UjfY+eX5ZvcELCIKs663F/co VFYFvf25LVONYbYifH5OzZDcG6hsRQZiAIgw+z837AqgX7ewI8e1h7RITgN14BHmGVt/ReJ9Mfhz zmbKTH7wI9GEU1utNskUAORCV2WFZX0jVtchDyr/klHhR+7g04zYe6TeVLW3pB0Q/PTyowo5AfuF Tedtv7OHRULAkyviFNkSCFXoGKtafvOtcW/mP16bynTCOInfd76oq4RH5afpA3RRyBl07OVp2D/S 9ogT8aIX6abOyKlLsxs8P4CT3FEuG2B2akliRSMGK2Dy3N4EVkyC1AI9a3irbifzymzQYX+P3oeg WAEmxA7fYPWOMqeKcNdSA/HgAF4eGQqCIZYtZlyKuZkMyFBGaEBYeh6pTEjU1n1GHZwJPgNabvlq 5Kov3X6m+UeFXprlCOm3BAEbJtAT1BYHStA0OogdNtRxnRSLF+XCKxIG9XMEgRDdaWpvCv+zESlk TxdSCNcDfRohcehWBb39uS1TjWG2Inx+Ts2QNOYPIz4ynMa7pZQ4hi/HGtuWeHzx9sLaQmDwvYQn 76e9NXttZBkk6PeFqH6So31P
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/WYZ9-8Q8mFq9t2v027eOcEGqpls>
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 02:19:11 -0000

On 6/25/2022 3:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> My question is whether there should be a discussion in 6man whether 
> this affects the rough consensus to proceed with the document. I have 
> no particular opinion on that, but it seems to me that a late IPR 
> disclosure should be treated just like a late substantive change.

+1. Deliberately late disclosure is bad behavior, and there has to be an 
associated cost.

I would also be tempted to request an appendix to the draft, detailing 
the disclosure process,  explaining when the allegedly impacted text was 
first added in a draft and reviewed by the WG, etc.

-- Christian Huitema

>
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 26-Jun-22 10:55, Erik Kline wrote:
>> There are IPR claims on the two IPPM drafts referred to in the 
>> handling of this option.  I have not read any of the associated IPR 
>> patent filings themselves (IANAL).
>>
>> I read this situation to mean that the treatment of the data in the 
>> option is likely to be covered by the IPR disclosures on the IPPM 
>> drafts discussing their use.  Whatever is claimed about use of this 
>> information in the IPv6 option is either competing with/related to 
>> the IPPM IPR filings, or someone has attempted to file for IPR on 
>> "something/anything in an IPv6 option".
>>
>> Regardless, as this document is just about putting the IPPM alt-mask 
>> information into an IPv6 option I don't see that there's much in the 
>> way of "alternatives" to be considered.  And "alternative" would be 
>> an entirely different document about and entirely different option 
>> and (probably) entirely different treatment of the information 
>> contained in that option.
>>
>> But, IANAL
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:12 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com 
>> <mailto:sm%2Bietf@elandsys.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Brian,
>>     At 02:37 PM 25-06-2022, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>      >You mean https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5320/ 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5320/> ?
>>
>>     Yes.
>>
>>     It's an odd case (re. Adrian's comment).
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     S. Moonesamy
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email