There seem to be at least two different dimensions here, probably more.
On the one hand, when I discuss with someone (in an airport, hotel,
whatever) an idea for a protocol behavior, that does not consistute
permission for them to submit an I-D (with or without my name on it)
with thewords I speak to them. if I send them an Email privately, not
as part of a WG or design team effort, then no, I hav enot given them
the right to use my words.
On the other hand, my personal feeling about such a conversation when I
have had them and there were patent issues, I did feel it was incumbent
upon me to say "I have filed for some relevant patents in this space."
No, I do not have to file a formal disclosure with the IETF. But it
would be misleading not to mention that IPR issues exist.
On 9/9/2011 5:55 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, September 09, 2011 10:07 -0400 Barry Leiba
but I guess I'm looking for a way that someone could
explicitly choose to have a meeting where Note Well did not
I agree, and I hope my suggested text says that. If more
needs to be said, we (for some value of "we" that might mean
"Lars and Gonzalo") can take another stab.
I think I disagree. I don't know what a decision to "Not apply
the Note Well" or, more specifically, to exempt oneself from the
disclosure requirements of RFC 3979, 4879, and 5378, means and,
especially wrt the disclosure requirements, if I do understand,
I don't like it. Let's see: "let's hold a bar bof and work
toward getting the IETF to consider adopting work that contains
submarine patents?" If it is a closed meeting with only those
who are already party to the relevant IPR present, then I guess
we don't care but I also continue to not see why we need an IETF
discussion or guidance for such meetings. If the organizers
want to involve others and get their support, suggestions, or
commitments without any obligation to disclose the IPR, then I
think the potential for abuse is just too large for the IETF to
be involved in that in any way (including, but not limited to,
making announcement channels available, assisting with
scheduling or space, or having WG Chairs, ADs, or IAB members
present in any capacity that might be interpreted by anyone as
associated with their IAB/IETF roles.
Again, I really don't care about secret meetings among friends.
But, as soon as the meeting is open, is announced openly in a WG
or area meeting or on an IETF-sponsored mailing list, or even
shows up on an IETF message board, then I think the disclosure
There is a separate issue in this, which is whether there are
activities that should require patent (and related IPR)
disclosures but that don't need to invoke the "Contributor"
(release of copyrights and permission for IETF reuse)
provisions. Personally, I believe we ought to separate those
two, precisely to enable broad-ranging informal discussions in
preliminary or organizational meetings. But that is not the way
the procedures are written today. Today they appear, at least
to my not-a-lawyer reading, to be inseparable s.t. if on
applies, the other does too. If people think that is wrong,
this type of document is not an appropriate (or even plausible)
place to fix it.
Gen-art mailing list
Ietf mailing list