--On Friday, July 08, 2016 13:05 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 disclosing because of (unpublished) hair-splitting that might 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. We could quibble about where the boundary about clarifications lies, especially given the language of 6701, but wfm. But that also suggests that, if _any_ additional clarification about the rules, or pointers to them, are needed beyond what BCP 79 and the Note Well already say, the substantive issues need to be sorted out as part of that BCP 79 update discussion and that an IESG statement is not a proper way to accomplish it. It may also suggest that key provisions of 6701 should be considered as part of that BCP 79 effort. john