As I read the discussion and the quote, the "must include the
following information to the extent reasonably available to the
discloser" clearly allows for the case here the discloser does not
know the information, and therefore cannot provide it. However,
the current form does nto permit that. It enforces "must include"
with no caveat.
Bob
Yours, Joel
On 4/19/2023 12:44 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
(On a phone, so please forgive the crimes against typography
that follow)
On 19 Apr 2023, at 5:19 pm, Salz, Rich
<rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I am far from confident that this ("do not discourage")
attitude is the right one to have. The LLC and its counsel
should decide if we really want to have people saying "I
think this patent reads against RFC xxx"
Thankfully the LLC doesn’t have to make a judgement call here
because we have a detailed policy to follow, RFC 8179, that says
in section 5.4.1:
An IPR disclosure must include the following information to the
extent reasonably available to the discloser: (a) the numbers of any
issued patents or published patent applications (or indicate that the
disclosure is based on unpublished patent applications),
As I understand it, our systems merely enforce the
policy, otherwise what’s the point of having a policy. If it
goes beyond the policy, which has happened elsewhere, then
that’s a bug that can be fixed.
Jay
--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
___________________________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@xxxxxxxx - https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
|
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
