On 11/7/2012 7:10 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote:
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.
...
I wonder whether we should encourage an informal warning that an
IPR disclosure is in the pipeline, when such a corporate delay is likely.
With my non-attorney's understanding of IPR protection, an 'informal'
disclosure to an outside party is still a disclosure. For the scenario
being discussed, the delay is specifically to get authorization for
/any/ disclosure, with the presumption that none is permitted absent
that authorization.
As for an assumption of integrity, the motivation for the current effort
is caused by a lack of IPR holders' being forthcoming.
It doesn't matter whether the problem has been due to lack of
understanding, lack of integrity, or something else: the reasonable
goal here is to make sure that this fundamental IETF requirement is more
clear to more people, sooner.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net