On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote:
> [ my last post on this ]
>
>> But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF
>> may have defined "late" somewhere
>
> we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how
> far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the
> primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate
> in submarine exercises.
+1
My experience is that, when the disclosure is made by a corporate IPR
department on behalf of the actual contributor, there can be at least
a couple of months delay. If a draft is at an early stage in the IETF
process, that isn't usually catastrophic, but it is a bit uncomfortable.
I wonder whether we should encourage an informal warning that an
IPR disclosure is in the pipeline, when such a corporate delay is likely.
On the other hand, there is sometimes the happy outcome that the
corporate IPR people decide that the contribution does not infringe
the essential claims, so no disclosure is needed.
Brian