On the third point... > (3) When I heard that the IESG was planning an additional > statement in this area, I assumed it would address the one > recent claimed development that seemed to be a loose end -- > whether someone who is listed as both an inventor and a > co-author on a document can possibly claim to not have > reasonably have personal knowledge of a possible or perceived > interaction between the two. I think current version of BCP 79 > might actually be a tad weak there: such inventors not > disclosing because of (unpublished) hair-splitting that might > make the invention inapplicable is not in the community's > interest. I think the intent of BCP 79 is (or should be) that > they disclose and, if appropriate, disclose why they don't think > there is an interaction. Anything else just feels a little > sleazy and does not benefit either the IETF processes or the > inventor -- especially given the risk that the inventor's > company will later come along and try to enforce the patent > against users of the IETF's spec, disclosing only after others > build products or when the enforcement action is started. I > think BCP 79 allows enough latitude for a formal interpretation > along those lines. But this statement is completely silent on > the matter. I agree that clarification of that is important, but I think it's entirely out of scope for an IESG statement, and, rather, something that has to be addressed by the BCP 79 update work. Barry