Re: Late IPR disclosure on RFC7024 - Opinions ?

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

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

Le 23/10/2014 20:22, Benson Schliesser a écrit :
> 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
>>