On 05/04/2016 07:15, John C Klensin wrote: ... > FWIW, I note that undisclosed IPR is only one of the reasons for > such an isolation principle. If an AD works for an organization > that has not announced, but is about to release, a product that > would interact with a WG's proposed work and could not disclose > the planned product (even if no IPR claims were intended and > whether the WG ultimately produced a standard that aligned with > the product or not), I'd want that AD isolated from influence > over decisions about that WG too. In a way, that makes the rule > for ADs just like that for ordinary WG participants: the price > of contributing or otherwise participating in a way that could > influence decisions is disclosure. Well, *exactly*. That's why I don't think that ADs or WGCs need to be called out in any particular way: they participate and therefore if they are reasonably and personally aware of IPR, they must disclose (and if they can't disclose, they need to stop participating in that particular case). > Another aspect of my reaction to Barry's comment is that, given > other changes in the IETF in the last 11 years, I'd really like > to see 3979bis recast as a matter of ethical obligations to the > IETF and fellow participants, with specific legal (or other) > requirements stated as corollaries to those ethical principles > rather than as standalone rules. I'm sympathetic with that idea, but not being a lawyer I don't know if it's feasible to truly separate them. Brian