Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a
little more "nuanced", for example you don't have to disclose until it
looks like your idea is going to be incorporated in something headed
towards standards track, but generally I think what you describe is how
things work now.
swb
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 05:49:10AM +0000, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote:
somebody asked me...
What is your position on these issues then?
i think that anyone who comments on the mailing list, or in WG meeting
minutes, or as a draft author, should have to disclose any relevant IPR
of which they are then aware or of which they become subsequently aware,
whether or not such awareness is due to prospective benefit by them, or
their employers, or their heirs or assigns. i also think contributors
to ietf specifications, whether verbally, or in e-mail forums, or as
authors, should have to quit-claim any relevant IPR except that which
they have disclosed in advance of a draft being submitted to the RFC
editor.
i think that the ensuing ietf-isoc-malamud hairball should pay for IPR
searches of all final-drafts before they reach the RFC editor, to get some
kind of reasonable belief that all relevant IPR has in fact been disclosed,
even though no warranties as to IPR should be expressed or implied.
if working groups want a standard to use protected IPR, their only
responsibility is to ensure that all IPR claims are properly disclosed.
if implementors want to build products on a standard that uses protected
IPR, they should be able to read the IPR legend in the RFC and make an
informed business decision as to whether they like what they see.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf