Re: Late IPR disclosure on RFC7024 - Opinions ?

[Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Martin.

Your response makes sense.

In particular, I agree that focusing on individuals is in-line with the 
spirit of the IETF. Unfortunately that might be a structural weakness - 
perhaps even an attack vector - in this context. This comment 
notwithstanding, it probably isn't appropriate for a WG to explore this 
issue in isolation, but rather a topic for broader IETF discussion 
including the IESG, IAB, etc.

As for the more concrete options 1 to 4 that I described, my personal 
choice would be #1. My rationale has to do with IPR issues that aren't 
appropriate for discussion on an IETF list.

Cheers,
-Benson


> Martin Vigoureux <mailto:[e-mail]>
> October 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM
> Hi Benson,
>
> I would say that 1 to 4 are valid options, but it shall be the WG 
> deciding the way forward.
>
> Also, as Chairs, we can think of a variety of punitive responses, 
> speaking in the general case, but these shall only concern individuals.
>
> -m
>
>
> Benson Schliesser <mailto:[e-mail]>
> October 23, 2014 at 2:22 PM
> Hi, Martin -
>
> Just to be clear, can you elaborate on what you see as the options here?
>
> I could imagine some combination of choices: 1) keeping the status 
> quo, acknowledging that the new IPR has been disclosed, and continuing 
> to proceed with the document as-is, 2) changing status to something 
> other than Proposed Standard, 3) revising the content (e.g. as a new 
> RFC?) to avoid IPR issues that are objectionable, or 4) evaluating 
> alternatives.
>
> Are you also aware of any options for a punitive response? I'm not 
> sure whether this would be against the inventors, company that owns 
> the IPR, employees of that company that should have known about the 
> IPR, etc. I'm also not sure what this punitive response would actually 
> be. BCP 79 doesn't seem to outline anything in this direction. But it 
> seems clear to me that the recent trends in late IPR disclosure are a 
> problem for the IETF.
>
> Thanks for any feedback you can give.
> -Benson
>
>
> Martin Vigoureux <mailto:[e-mail]>
> October 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM
> Working Group,
>
> we've received couple months ago an extremely late IPR disclosure 
> (much later than what can be expected as per rules in BCP79) against 
> RFC 7024:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2415/
>
> Please take a careful look at the licensing declaration and let us 
> know whether this is subject to question RFC 7024 (both in its content 
> and/or status).
>
> Thank you
>
> M&T
>