John, > On Dec 22, 2020, at 1:49 PM, john heasley <heas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > >> Secondly, we have no power to "disallow" late IPR disclosures. > > make it painful. Careful, it would be very easy for someone to report irrelevant IPR to detail legitimate work. We only list reported IPR, the IETF does’t evaluate it to see if it is relevant. Let’s not let the IPR mechanisms as a DOS attack on the IETF. Bob > >> 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. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
