--On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 06:31 -0500 Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > See also https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/4510 Robert, Thanks. But it appears to me that issue, and particularly Brad Biddle's comments, are addressed to disclosures by Patent Holders and the associated form [1], particularly with the issue of blanket disclosures, which are, in some ways "specific" and in some ways more general [2]. If one somehow manages to get to one of those pages without going through (and understanding) the general disclosure page [3], figuring out whether one is on the correct one would be a real challenge. That suggests an issue almost separate from the ones in that thread and below, which is that the set of IPR and IPR disclosure pages are in need of a UI/UX review for clarity of the relationship among the three forms and navigability among them. Perhaps a paragraph at the top of each one that builds on the introductory paragraph of the third-party form, pointing people in the right direction if they are in the wrong place (noting that the current paragraph appears to assume a two-way, rather than a three-way choice). I'll add a comment to the Github issue about another aspect of this. By contrast, at least as I understand it, the thread below is addressed to third party disclosures and the separate form for them [4]. For those cases, as Samir, Scott, and I tried to point out, making fields -- especially the patent or application number -- mandatory is unreasonable because the discloser cannot tell you what they don't know and we should not be doing anything that discourages such disclosures. thanks, john [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-general/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/ [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-third-party/ > > On 4/18/23 7:08 PM, Scott Bradner wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> ___________________________________________________________ >> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@xxxxxxxx - >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
