Re: ipr-wg was Proposal to cease accepting IPR disclosures by unstructured email

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 19 July 2022 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 B20CCC147930 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 o5kPNQVfGog4 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FDB4C14CF17 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 19:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1oDcdO-000IcQ-F1; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:06:50 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:06:43 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>
cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ipr-wg was Proposal to cease accepting IPR disclosures by unstructured email
Message-ID: <A877A30E0E0EE13D50768AFD@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <6DB70F92-73A9-40B2-BB55-354E3CC5C5E2@harvard.edu>
References: <CCFDE8BD-FC28-4E32-8861-06870AAB5AFE@ietf.org> <X+I2w3vrKZ2rLg1N@shrubbery.net> <acca1f7c-21b7-7e88-7456-5d1fbb0e7983@gmail.com> <5FE37944.3020203@btconnect.com> <235f9c45-536a-b765-c0d7-4616e7ae9db7@gmail.com> <E34E4E8C-EC51-4109-A55E-154DECF18BC7@eggert.org> <CANMZLAbT_3ipDmyn9GkJH3TLxva-rftcUvmeaWWs48w=4T=yGA@mail.gmail.com> <581e9916-cef3-b3ac-5087-a54f45d44b40@gmail.com> <7914fc8f-70cb-f915-232a-fb25b745395a@telchemy.com> <3DAA135C-F0FA-43DB-8EF0-2C1AE6EA0E43@harvard.edu> <5F13E83A33CDF8248A023AAB@PSB> <4E07D557-8019-434B-B094-471D45E93399@harvard.edu> <4526F8E4ACC85DF2EA110E60@PSB> <6DB70F92-73A9-40B2-BB55-354E3CC5C5E2@harvard.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/t83JJBrMto1XJqIxDwVJe2SzvIA>
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 02:06:58 -0000


--On Monday, July 18, 2022 23:26 +0000 "Bradner, Scott"
<sob@harvard.edu> wrote:

> fwiw - I do not think the IETF should ever do that - but
> multiple companies who were sued for  implementing IETF
> standards raised the non-conformance to IETF process as part
> of their defense

Indeed.  But that is two companies, either of whom are the IETF,
suing each other.  And then it is, as you pointed out, up to the
courts with the IETF not directly involved or enforcing
anything.  Certainly when those defenses prevail --whether in
terms of rendering IPR unenforceable or in other ways-- it
should, if generally known, act as a deterrent to ignoring the
rules.  That, of course, raises the question of whether the IETF
should take measures to be sure that such cases and their
outcomes are better publicized (unless the court orders us not
to).  But my instinct, fwiw, says that the answer to that
question is "no" and that we should, to the extent possible,
stay uninvolved in those proceedings.

    john