(Copying tools-discuss for obvious reasons) Scott, Do I correctly understand from the combination of your note and Samir's question that a third-party disclosure without an application number is often appropriate and that it it not obvious how such a disclosure can be made through the web interface? Looking at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-third-party/>, it seems to me that a little work is in order because: (1) At least with the way that page renders in Firefox, while the major (Roman numeral) section title are in large type, the (alphabetic) subsection titles are easy to miss and, in particular, it is easy to not notice IV(B) in context. (2) Even for that IV(B) case, we would like to capture as much of the application number, Inventor, and Title information and whatever relevant notes the submitter might be able to provide. The current form prevents supplying that information except as "Additional notes" in Section VI. If the intent is that such information should be supplied there rather than in a more structured way, a sentence of two of advice in IV(B) to that effect would seem useful. (3) It seems to me that, as Section IV is structured, there are actually three cases, not two: A. Granted patents or published pending patent applications for which the discloser has either a copy of the patent or full information in hand. B. an unpublished pending patent application C. A known (or claimed) patent for which the discloser has less information than we might like but for which the disclosure is still relevant. As I read Section 5.1.3 of RFC 8179 and remember discussions leading to it, the intent is to encourage disclosures in all three cases and expect the discloser to supply as much information as they have and no more. The current structure of the submission page would seem to discourage that, at least without additional instructions. john --On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 06:46 -0400 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > RFC 8179 section 5.4.1 covers this - > > 1/ the application number should not be mandatory since the > RFC says "to the extent reasonably available to the discloser" > > 2/ but if the application number is known it should be > disclosed even if the application itself is unpublished > > Scott > >> On Apr 18, 2023, at 6:25 AM, Samir Srivastava >> <srivastava_samir@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> To submit IPR disclosure, we have HTTPS interface. It >> doesn't provide a way to declare UNPUBLISHED application. >> As application number is mandatory. >> >> I requested long time back for this to ietf-ipr@xxxxxxxx. >> But it is still there. >> >> Is there any other way to do the above? >> >> With Best Regards >> Samir Srivastava, >> Fatehgarh, Distt, Farrukhabad (UP) >> INDIA >
