> On Apr 18, 2023, at 7:01 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > (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? > yes > 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. sounds right to me > > (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 B. an unpublished pending patent application 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. agree > > > 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. agree > The current structure of > the submission page would seem to discourage that, at least > without additional instructions. that seems top be a problem that should get fixed Scott > > 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 >> > >
