On 12/22/20 4:49 PM, john heasley wrote:
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.
no. An IPR disclosure is somewhat of a misnomer, since IETF does not
(and should not) take any position with respect to the validity (or lack
thereof) of an IPR claim. Resetting the adoption call (required or
not) would enable a DoS attack on the WG.
There are lots of invalid patents on the books. But IPR claims are
for courts and lawyers and patent offices to sort out, and that takes
years.
Secondly, we have no power to "disallow" late IPR disclosures.
make it painful.
Emphatically disagree. The IPR disclosure mechanism that exists was
chosen very carefully.
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.
Not a valid assumption. I hate the patent system with a passion, hate
the way it penalizes individuals and small organizations and impairs
standardization, hate the way that employees can be coerced into buying
into it. But blaming IETF participants for the actions of their
employers is inconsistent with the purpose of a volunteer organization.
(though perhaps there should be a process by which an IETF participant
can place a draft on hold, without saying why, until their employer
sorts things out)
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.
Emphatically disagree.
BTW, I also disagree with the proposal to require IPR disclosures to be
submitted via the web. Email attachments are the better mechanism.
Forcing a web form interface on the people who are likely to be
submitting such disclosures just makes it less likely that they will
submit them. Most web form interfaces are UI disasters, but everyone
in a law office understand email attachments. If you want to say they
should be email attachments in one of these N formats (e.g. pdf, plain
text, ODF, or [sigh] MS Word), and that each disclosure should be in its
own email, that sounds fine to me. Update the RFC describing IPR
disclosures to reflect the amended procedure, and any plain text message
arriving at that email address after <some date> should be bounced with
a message explaining that it needs to be an attachment.
Keith
