Re: Late IPR disclosure on RFC7024 - Opinions ?

[Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]>]

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
>