Re: Revision to Note Well (some history) - updated

This is essentially a repeat of a discussion that has happened every few
years since the late 1990s.  The original idea for the Note Well (at least
*my* original idea) was that it should simply be a pointer to the IETF IPR
policy, which has many pages of explanation and answers most of the
questions that people have been raising on this thread.  It should be
obvious, I think, that a complex process like the IETF's IPR disclosure
procedure can't be fully explained in a couple of sentences.  Any such
attempt is bound to be incomplete.

This being said, there has been a strong desire by many to have a summary
statement that also serves as a pointer to the real policy.  That's what
the current Note Well is supposed to be.  It is NOT a statement of the
IETF's IPR rules.  Those are contained in BCP 78/79, and anyone who is
responsible for his/her company's IPR and/or compliance needs to read those
and not rely on the summary statement/pointer contained in Note Well.

Jorge


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

> oops - reviewing my logs, it was Jorge Contreras not Geoff Stewart, and
> John Klensin was part of
> the initial (to blame) group
>
> Scott
>
> On Feb 7, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> > something that is being missed in this discussion
> >
> > the old "Note Well" does not do, nor was it intended to do, what people
> have assumed it did
> > the Note Well was developed, starting in about April 2000, to provide
> classification
> > on what should be considered a "contribution" to the IETF - at the time
> there
> > was a lot of confusion - some people thought the 2026 IPR rules only
> applied to
> > Internet Draft submission and others thought it covered mailing list and
> > microphone statements - the Note Well was developed by me and the then
> IETF lawyer,
> > Geoff Stewart, with the help of Steve Coya and initially discussed at an
> IESG retreat.
> > a common feature of the proposed revisions (the IERTF one as well as the
> IESG ones)
> > is to expand the mission of the Note Well to actually say what you
> should DO if you
> > have IPR that an IETF working group would be better off knowing about
> >
> > note well that the above is a history lesson for context and should not
> discus the
> > current discussion thread other than to perhaps forestall a return to
> the good old
> > Note Well that was not, by itself, actionable
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Scott Brim 
> > <scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm concerned that any abbreviated form will inadequately represent
> > > the nuances of the full policy, and that if we create a single uniform
> > > abbreviated version that must be shown at f2f meetings, that opens
> > > loopholes. For example, possibly: "Well, yes I agreed to the Note
> > > Well, but then in the meeting they showed a different version that
> > > didn't cover X. I thought that took precedence."
> > >
> > > There are many ways the full Note Well is dealt with at this time,
> > > most of them good. I don't think you'll get more attention paid to the
> > > IPR policy by showing an abbreviated form.
> > >
> > > Scott