Fine. Account it under wordsmithing :-)
Stephan
From: Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com<mailto:sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com>>
Date: Monday, April 4, 2016 at 17:46
To: Stephan Wenger
<stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org<mailto:stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org>>
Cc: Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org<mailto:barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>>,
IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual
Property Rights in IETF Technology")
On Apr 4, 2016, at 4:06 PM, Stephan Wenger
<stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org<mailto:stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org>> wrote:
Hi all,
Barry and I had a chat about this. I also had offline conversations with Mike
Cameron and a chat with Joel. Barry and I at least agree on the problems. The
solutions are mine for now, and they absolutely are in need of wordsmithing...
Based on the discussion so far, there seem to be a need for the following:
1. A clarification that an AD, by the nature of his/her office, regularly
becomes aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last
Call) and, therefore, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those
Contributions until such late time in the process.
To fix this point, a simple explanatory sentence somewhere in section 5.2.2
would suffice. For example “By the nature of their office, IETF area directors
regularly become aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at
IETF Last Call) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to
disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until such late time in the
process.”
this does not seem right
why not say
By the nature of their office, IETF area directors may become aware of
Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG
review) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to disclose any
IPR Covering those Contributions until they become aware of them.”