maybe the IESG has too strong a NIH phobia to do the simple thing and adopt what the IRTF did in any case the question of “participation” was debated long and hard in two IPR BOFs and on the IPR working list with the result was to replace the idea participation with "any activity that was intended to affect the IETF Standards Process” see draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-06.txt Scott On Feb 7, 2014, at 3:05 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2014-2-6, at 20:35, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> "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, or not participate in the discussion." >> >> That is still wrong, because it doesn't distinguish the case of 3rd party >> disclosures, which are optional, from 1st party disclosures, which are >> mandatory. > > Exactly. The new text does not address the issue. > > Lars > > PS: I'll again point to the IRTF statement, which does: http://irtf.org/ipr. We'll make it available to the IETF for the low, low price of a round of beers for the IRSG :-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail