On 05/04/2016 07:15, John C Klensin wrote:
...
FWIW, I note that undisclosed IPR is only one of the reasons for
such an isolation principle. If an AD works for an organization
that has not announced, but is about to release, a product that
would interact with a WG's proposed work and could not disclose
the planned product (even if no IPR claims were intended and
whether the WG ultimately produced a standard that aligned with
the product or not), I'd want that AD isolated from influence
over decisions about that WG too. In a way, that makes the rule
for ADs just like that for ordinary WG participants: the price
of contributing or otherwise participating in a way that could
influence decisions is disclosure.
Well, *exactly*. That's why I don't think that ADs or WGCs need to
be called out in any particular way: they participate and therefore
if they are reasonably and personally aware of IPR, they must disclose
(and if they can't disclose, they need to stop participating in
that particular case).
Another aspect of my reaction to Barry's comment is that, given
other changes in the IETF in the last 11 years, I'd really like
to see 3979bis recast as a matter of ethical obligations to the
IETF and fellow participants, with specific legal (or other)
requirements stated as corollaries to those ethical principles
rather than as standalone rules.
I'm sympathetic with that idea, but not being a lawyer I don't know
if it's feasible to truly separate them.
Brian