>>The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the >>participation. > > I think this is incorrect. > > According to section 5.1.2 (disclosure requirement based on > Participation, not own IPR), a disclosure obligation exists if “the > Participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover that > Contribution”. I don’t think anyone could argue that an AD has a > “believe” in a patent or application he/she is aware of Covers a > Contribution when he has never seen the Contribution. Would you accept "I didn't read the draft" as an acceptable reason that someone engaged in active discussion on a draft didn't disclose? We don't have different levels of Contributor here. Someone making a Contribution has an obligation to disclose, even if s/he was one of those who said, "I didn't read the draft, but...." If we declare the ADs to be Contributors, why does the same not apply to them? > A late disclosure is better than no disclosure I hope we all agree on that! > clearly, an AD > has a much better justification of making such a late disclosure. I > would hope that no one would complain if an AD makes a late disclosure > and, when asked for the reason of lateness, he says “I was not > responsible AD; I came across this during final review in IETF last > call, and just identified this. “ In fact, people should appreciate > this. Maybe so, but as it stands now in the document, it's still a late disclosure, and there might still be backlash, legal concerns by employers, and reluctance to put people in that position. If that's the consensus, then there we have it... but I think we should be very careful about unintended consequences of this one. Barry