On 15/12/2011 21:26, Pete Resnick wrote:
Folks,
As you have seen by now, the IETF has received 2 IPR disclosures, one
regarding draft-ietf-sieve-convert and the other involving
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message.
I just want to point out that you made a typo in the subject line, but
the above text is correct. An IPR declaration was filed on
draft-ietf-sieve-convert and not draft-ietf-sieve-include.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1657/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/
Unfortunately, we have been told that Qian Sun, one of the co-authors
of the document, is the author of the patent in question, filed back
in 2008, and that he failed to disclose this at the time. I think this
was pretty clearly a violation of RFC 3979, and the IESG will take up
the question of what, if any, appropriate measures need to be taken
because of that. Qian Sun is apparently no longer an active IETF
participant, and his co-workers who are active IETF participants asked
their company to disclose against the two documents as soon as they
discovered what had happened. That's where were are now.
However, I did want to bring this to the attention of the working
group and ask about the following:
Both of these drafts are already approved and in the RFC Editor queue.
Right now, the RFC Editor has been asked to hold off publication for
the moment until we decide the next steps. We could treat the IPR
disclosures just as we would for any already published RFC (that is,
we can simply say that it is out of our hands). However, since
publication has not occurred, we can ask the RFC Editor to return the
documents to the WG for further review, which as far as I can tell the
RFC Editor always agrees to do. So, I ask that you all review the
disclosures and ask the following question to the group:
After having reviewed the disclosures, does anyone in the WG wish to
discuss the impact of these disclosures on the decision to publish
these documents as they are? If so, I will likely ask the chairs to
run a WGLC on the documents, and then I will run a new IETF Last Call
with a pointer to the IPR disclosures. On the other hand, if there is
*strong* consensus now on the list that it is fine go forward as-is, I
will consider the matter settled and tell the RFC Editor to continue
processing.
Please let us know what you think.
pr
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve