An you clarify whether you consider your use case as trying to meet the
requirements of 6.1.2 or the requirements of 6.1.3 of RFC 3979.
Regards
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: WGChairs [mailto:wgchairs-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Mulligan, Geoff
Sent: 27 January 2014 17:01
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: IETF WG Chairs; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Mailing List
Subject: RE: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem
with new Note Well )
So because I know of IPR that someone else has and is not
disclosing and because I cannot legally disclose it - I can't
continue to participate in the discussion doesn't seem right.
I'm not the holder of the IPR that isn't being disclosed,
but I'm penalized.
Geoff
Geoff Mulligan | Presidential Innovation Fellow | Cyber
Physical Systems | 301.975.6283
________________________________________
From: Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:02 AM
To: Mulligan, Geoff
Cc: IETF WG Chairs; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Mailing List
Subject: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with
new Note Well )
Starting a separate thread, because this is not related to
the original complaint about inaccurate new note well text.
Maybe this is a potential rat-hole - I don't know - but what if:
- I'm working as a consultant and attending the IETF
representing myself
- I know of IPR in someone else's contribution
- I'm participating in the discussion
- I'm under an NDA with that company that covers their IPR
That is a rat-^H^H^H^Hhard problem. Something has to give.
You can't simultaneously follow two incompatible sets of
rules. If you end up in that situation and can't convince
parties to disclose, maybe "participating in the discussion"
has to give. Of course this is a specific example of things
that can happen in people's lives in other ways, too. Two
consulting contracts that have incompatible requirements.
Board position and a job that creates a conflict interest for
you to be in the board. And so on.
Jari