Jay - it is not in error that the text says "to the extent reasonably available to the discloser"
as others have pointed out as well
Scott
> On Apr 19, 2023, at 12:44 PM, Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> 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 disclosure is based on unpublished patent applications),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
