On 2008-08-15 01:48, SM wrote:
> At 03:59 14-08-2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
>> existence of posters (do they
>> exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
>> _before_ the posting is accepted.
>
> The submission form could send out an email to the two email addresses
> and accept the submission if a confirmation is received from them. That
> may reduce "spam" and some duplicate submissions.
>
>> - a requirement that a company confirm the validity of a disclosure
>> before it is posted publicly.
>
> IPR disclosures are submitted by participants and contributors. Does a
> company fall within these two categories?
Exactly. We've always allowed contributors to be represented by their
employers in IPR disclosures, but the onus is on the contributor. In any
case, *any* form of vetting of the sender of a disclosure seems to me
to be much further down the slippery slope of making a judgment than
either duplicate-detection or drivel-filtering. I really do not think
we should go there. If unauthorised license promises are made, we want
to be well out of the legal firing line.
On 2008-08-15 02:24, Stephan Wenger wrote:
...
> Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of withdrawal
> requests for previous disclosures. In no case (that I'm aware of) our
> intention has been to sneak out of a licensing commitment. Instead, we
> submitted withdrawal requests with the intention to keep the IETF patent
> database a useful tool---to do our share of database cleanup, so to speak.
The intention is fine but removing is IMHO completely the wrong answer -
the correct answer is to update the disclosure with a new one that
withdraws it. I can see that the removal of a very recent disclosure
that's found to be in error may be reasonable, but even that isn't
described in RFC 3979.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf