Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There are a number of different problems, and only some of them have > been articulated. Worse, the problems include the IPR rules themselves, > not just the Note Well: > > 0. We have had IPR rules and a Note Well for many years and have > revised both a number of times. I'd bet 90% of folks who read the Note Well aren't even aware that BCP 79 is a concatenation of RFC 3979 and RFC 4879. :^( It is a sad fact that having read BCP 79 eight years ago isn't "enough". > Normally, work we do that has been around that long warrants being > called "mature", which means that it works well and is well understood. Delusions _are_ functional! ;^) > The latest discussion demonstrates that that model does not apply to > the IETF's IPR handling... > 1. The participants in the discussion are extremely experienced > with the IETF and with this topic. Yet they demonstrated a strong > /lack/ of rough consensus about what the /current/ IPR rules mean. +1 > 2. The current rules are too complex for use by average engineers. > Engineers are not attorneys, nevermind IPR attorneys... Folks are pretty much forced to "click-through" any legalese today. We are only deluding ourselves to think it "means" anything. > 3. The current IPR rules appear to impose an unreasonable demand > on IETF participants, such as conflicting with employment > arrangements... By the time the average attendee hears the Note Well read in a meeting, the employer has already agreed to pay for airfare and hotel. Do we really expect that he who pays the piper doesn't call the tune? > 4. The current Note Well is too complex and apparently erroneous... I am sympathetic to Pete's desire to impress on hearers that there _are_ rules about disclosing IPR. But we shouldn't go so far as to exclude Cisco employees. > 5. Expecting an average IETF engineer to consult 4 different BCPs, > in order to understand what is required of them is not reasonable. > Nor is all [of] each document relevant... It's actually worse, since BCPs can change... :^( > 6. Having a range of experienced, diligent IETF participants > demonstrate substantive disagreement about the meaning of our > current IPR rules undermines whatever utility the rules might > have... I wouldn't go quite that far... lawyers _love_ disagreements about what a document "means." We can't avoid this! :^( But IMHO, the Note Well read at the beginning of meetings shouldn't attempt to summarize the rules: merely "BCP 79 as of January 2014" seems sufficient. (Which is not to say that a more extensive "Note Well" during the registration process wouldn't be appropriate...) -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>