Hi Scott. I assume you mean "reflect" :-) As far as a better way to say it, I propose the language from the related thread. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:14 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology") we were trying to reject the consensus we heard but if someone has a better way to say this we would be happy to use it Scott > On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Trying to take this into a practical direction. > > I think the current sentence in the draft is fairly broad, and doesn't necessarily match practical capabilities that chairs or ADs have, as explained by Spencer and others. The issue is, if Spencer doesn't read all documents on the other half of the area, or if Jari doesn't read all the documents because he delegates some of the review task to a directorate, how would we know what to declare, even if we were personally aware of IPR on a topic? It may of course be that once we read a document later (such as in last call or as part of a final IESG review), you may finally realise that a declaration is necessary. But, as noted, not even that is necessarily always guaranteed. > > Jari > >