RE: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

I agree that the 'race condition' is a bug in the 3667 legend language.  Making it consistent with 3668 would be more accurate.

As far as the second issue raised by Fred, that was an intentional feature.  If a patent application has not been published and the applicant wishes to maintain the confidentiality of its contents, then he/she should not submit an ID covered by the application's claims unless willing to disclose enough to satisfy the 3668 requirements.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
fred@cisco.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:50 AM
To: sob@harvard.edu
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org; rbarr@cisco.com
Subject: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

Robert Barr and I were discussing, and concluded that there is an error
in the language required by section 5.1 of RFC 3667. Consider the
text:

   "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
    with RFC 3668."

I cannot file an IPR notice without a posted draft to file it
concerning, and this statement says that at the time I post it I have
already revealed all IPR known to me. In communication protocol design,
we refer to this as a "race condition."

There is also another issue with it; IPR is generally not granted for
years after filing, the contents of the filing are confidential, and
one doesn't know what subset of the claims in the filing will be
granted. So this, I believe, requires me to not file an internet draft
describing any algorithms concerning which I may have filed for IPR
claims until those claims have been granted or denied and I can talk
about my IPR.

The claim is also inconsistent with RFC 3668, which states:

6.2.1.  Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.1

   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made
   as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published
   in an Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on
   file.

Is this what was intended?

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

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