The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the
participation.
I think this is incorrect.
According to section 5.1.2 (disclosure requirement based on
Participation, not own IPR), a disclosure obligation exists if “the
Participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover that
Contribution”. I don’t think anyone could argue that an AD has a
“believe” in a patent or application he/she is aware of Covers a
Contribution when he has never seen the Contribution.
Would you accept "I didn't read the draft" as an acceptable reason
that someone engaged in active discussion on a draft didn't disclose?
We don't have different levels of Contributor here. Someone making a
Contribution has an obligation to disclose, even if s/he was one of
those who said, "I didn't read the draft, but...." If we declare the
ADs to be Contributors, why does the same not apply to them?
A late disclosure is better than no disclosure
I hope we all agree on that!
clearly, an AD
has a much better justification of making such a late disclosure. I
would hope that no one would complain if an AD makes a late disclosure
and, when asked for the reason of lateness, he says “I was not
responsible AD; I came across this during final review in IETF last
call, and just identified this. “ In fact, people should appreciate
this.
Maybe so, but as it stands now in the document, it's still a late
disclosure, and there might still be backlash, legal concerns by
employers, and reluctance to put people in that position.
If that's the consensus, then there we have it... but I think we
should be very careful about unintended consequences of this one.
Barry