Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:44:29AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter: > > If IPR arises after adoption, the draft should > > automatically return to an adoption call - but much better to simply not > > allow it. > > Firstly, an adoption call is not a formal or required part of the IETF process, it is simply a pragmatic step that some WGs use (see RFC7221). So we can't have a requirement to repeat a step that isn't required in the first place. so discard it, forcing them to start from the beginning. > Secondly, we have no power to "disallow" late IPR disclosures. make it painful. > Sometimes people only discover patents late, and do us a favour by notifying them. That particularly applies to third party disclosures, or patents elsewhere in a large company**. > Sometimes people are legally or contractually unable to make disclosures until their employer decides to publish an application. That is not a valid excuse. They know about it, therefore should not submit the draft until they decide what they're doing. > I'm sure there are other cases too, such as when an IETF Last Call triggers a disclosure by somebody who has been unaware of the draft until then. back to the beginning of the process.
