On Jan 23, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Dale R. Worley <worley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> You are not asked to click "I agree" to any statement. You are asked >> to "Acknowledge" that you read it. And the statement says right at >> the top: >> >> "This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and >> does not contain all the details. Exceptions may apply." > >> From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> "If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or >> discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >> applications, you must disclose that fact." > > Surely we can write a better statement than what Cullen quotes. To > begin with, it contains the word "must". And while the statment is > amplified with "does not contain all the details", can we not provide > a proper pointer to the details? > > Not being fully informed about this subject, it seems to me that it > would be far better to say: > > "By participating in an IETF discussion, you agree that if you are > aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed > in any IETF context) to that discussion is covered by patents or > patent applications, you may be required to disclose that fact. > The specific requirements are described in BCP 79." > > Dale I’d be fine with Dale’s proposal.