On 14/04/2016 05:41, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> ... My understanding of the
> discussion there was that the community's intent is that, if one
> knew of IPR that might reasonably be expected to bear on the
> work of a WG or a particular document, the expectation was that
> one would disclose (with the level of that expectation
> deliberately lower if one was not directly connected to the IPR
> than if one was directly connected. If, for some reason,
> disclosure was impossible and/or would violate other
> commitments, then one was expected to be clearly isolated from
> the work generally and from any reasonable doubts about whether
> one had influenced a decision or attempted to do so.
Yes. Our aim, as I understand it, is to facilitate open discussion
and publication of open, interoperable standards, without damaging
the legitimate rights of IPR owners. That does not include allowing
IPR owners to disguise their IPR during the discussion, even by silence.
It also does not include forcing individuals to trigger onerous patent
searches, which is why our criterion has always been "reasonably and
personally known". This still seems like a reasonable compromise, and
I don't see the proposed updates as a fundamental change to the way ADs
and WG Chairs have always been expected to behave. We're just trying
to make it crystal clear.
As far as I know, the IETF isn't infected by people from non-practicing
entities, and all the major patent-writing companies have generally
played the game honestly. So I don't think we have a burning issue
here, just a desire to clarify the documents for future participants
and contributors.
Brian