Re: [irsg] Next steps when IPR has been disclosed for a specification
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 07 January 2025 20:41 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC49AC1E0D93 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 12:41:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 JMK-jfNCGJcA for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 12:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5D4CC20795F for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 12:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YSNH91DwBzDCc9; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 21:40:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Subject: Re: [irsg] Next steps when IPR has been disclosed for a specification
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR02MB9292953172A5CE2EEACD9E26B7112@PH7PR02MB9292.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 21:40:52 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 757975252.700814-f3dea1e3bdafbb9e3465eb6d11df237a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <02105676-2B8B-4809-B2C4-53D0360CA598@tzi.org>
References: <CAE+mDdxLZ0P7GhkCB0ydFiWOb43EjX=Jp35Xryko3KT8UC7JNw@mail.gmail.com> <2ba3cab7-0195-4362-38fe-a47e2824ffa4@ietf.contact> <PH7PR02MB929269EFF0CF5E5E9801E5B2B7062@PH7PR02MB9292.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <VI0PR83MB07623B6AB379C454BCB47AC7B2102@VI0PR83MB0762.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com> <PH7PR02MB9292953172A5CE2EEACD9E26B7112@PH7PR02MB9292.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: Michael Jones <michael_b_jones@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Message-ID-Hash: ZSCVFX2JXEZAXZKFBRXLL2B6Z4HOK4JQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZSCVFX2JXEZAXZKFBRXLL2B6Z4HOK4JQ
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-wgchairs.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "wgchairs@ietf.org" <wgchairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/eEd4lXLAxubLVyet4Rji6GsyA_Q>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:wgchairs-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:wgchairs-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:wgchairs-leave@ietf.org>
On 2025-01-07, at 17:41, Michael Jones <michael_b_jones@hotmail.com> wrote: > > What are the next steps when IPR has been disclosed about a draft in response to the shepherd’s IPR inquiry? I’ve never been down that branch of the process before. We just had an IPR disclosure pop up in another WG, but earlier in the process. You might want to read what a fellow chair told the WG. Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/-8jgb0jpEOpPjfJyfkIcVcpx5F0> (IANAL, and I’m sure I have only started the usual cacophony of all the other arm-chair lawyers…) The important thing here is that the WG has to decide that the document has consensus in the presence of the IPR disclosure. If you did the WGLC without the WG having knowledge of the IPR disclosure, redo a specific WGLC on this aspect. (Yes, this hurts me to say.) The processes specifically give the WG a power here that nobody else has. Note that this IP disclosure has the interesting status “No License Required for Implementers”, for which I’m not an expert. It would be useful to have a statement from the owner of the patent claims. Grüße, Carsten
- Next steps when IPR has been disclosed for a spec… Michael Jones
- Re: Next steps when IPR has been disclosed for a … Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [irsg] Next steps when IPR has been disclosed… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irsg] Next steps when IPR has been disclosed… David Schinazi
- Re: [irsg] Next steps when IPR has been disclosed… John Mattsson
- Re: Next steps when IPR has been disclosed for a … Pete Resnick