I asked a very specific question about whether there is an issue
with what you're advocating for MASS and the PRA IPR. You evaded
the question twice.
You're the one here making a proposal. It's yours to defend, and
that includes potential legal landmines too. Especially given the
outcome of MARID.
But you are the one raising the question. The person asking a
question has a responsibility to ask one that is sufficiently
meaningful to permit a meaningful answer.
There is a difference between a broad question and a specific one.
You think that a generic question that includes nothing but a general
reference to an entire body of text is specific. I don't. And from
my experience, neither do folks who do IPR discussions for a living.
You seem to think it is unreasonable for me to ask exactly what
specific language you are concerned about. Whereas i do not know how
to answer questions that lack specificity, particularly in the midst
of what is supposed to be a technical discussion.
You also appear to believe that the proposer of something has an
obligation to explain generic legal issues about their proposal. I
haven't noticed that obligation in the IETF before. Please explain
the IETF basis for your assessment of the requirement.
Absent any more detail to your query, my own involvement in your
question is done.
dcrocker a t ...