ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

2016-03-25 15:32:13


--On Saturday, March 26, 2016 08:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

It's clear that any design team *output* is a contribution.
But if a group of friends have a chat over lunch, not as a
design team mandated by WG chairs, and one of them mentions a
silly idea that is rejected in favour of a good idea that the
group later proposes to the WG, is that silly idea a
contribution? I don't think so.

+1.  But what makes that output a Contribution is its injection
into the IETF process as an I-D, a WG discussion, a comment at a
plenary microphone, or mention on an IETF-related mailing list.
All of those are clearly Contributions even under 3979 and its
predecessors.

All the same, I think the phrase "IETF-sanctioned" is
redundant. A citation of RFC 2418 would be in order, perhaps.

Remember that we have a significant number of documents,
standards-track and otherwise, that do not come out of WGs and
that we have traditionally wanted to be covered by IPR
disclosure rules.   2418, AFAICT, is only about WGs.

    john

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>