Stewart, Thanks again for your comments. Inline: > In the body of this document you say: > > j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC > Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026]. > > RFC2026 states that the drafts are removed from the directory, implying > that after that time they are not available. Whilst that never really > reflected reality, the IETF through its tools system actively makes these > documents available in perpetuity. Given the legal nature of this draft > we ought to properly note the permanent availability of these temporary > documents. OK. Do you have a text suggestion, or would dropping “temporary” in this context be sufficient? > Section 5.3.3 specifically calls out ADs but there are many others who > fall into the same category: the GEN_ART team, the directorates of > other areas such as SEC and OPS, and of course regular contributors that > only read an out of area RFC when they need to use its contents. Fair point. > If the text is specifically going to call out ADs it ought to also call > out those that help ADs as part of their review process. > > The test says: > > An IPR disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or > published patent applications or indicate that the disclosure is > based on unpublished patent applications. The IPR disclosure must > also list the name(s) of the inventor(s) (with respect to issued > patents and published patent applications) and the specific IETF > Document(s) or activity affected. > > In some cases that is simply impractical. For example one might > know that IPR was filed at a previous employer, for example > because you were on the patent review panel, but of course > would no longer have access to the documents to tease out the > exact identity of the patent. All that we can expect by the first > stage discloser, perhaps filing a third party disclosure, is as > much information as they still have available. Right. Is there a possibility to have a different rule for 3rd party and “regular” declarations? > In section 7 you state > > When adopting new technologies, the participants in an IETF working > group are expected to evaluate all the relevant tradeoffs from their > perspective. Most of the time these considerations are based purely > on technical excellence, but IPR considerations may also affect the > evaluation and specific licensing terms may affect the participants' > opinion on the desirability of adopting a particular technology. > > There is a catch 22 problem with this text and later text in the section. > The IPR situation may indeed affect an adoption decision, but the WG > is not allowed to discuss the terms of the licence. In some cases the > terms of an encumbered technology may be just fine, but > contributors making an adoption decision cannot form a view > on this as part of the IETF process. So you can end up with > one partly saying yes because of IPR, another saying no > because of IPR and neither allowed to explain their position as > part of the IETF process. Good point. But I see no way around that. There are plenty of good reasons why negotiation about license is not a good idea to do in IETF. Also, end results matter. If a draft fails to be adopted, I’ve seen companies post not just updated drafts but also updated declarations that ultimately led to adoption. That’s a fine mode of operation, and one way out of your catch-22. Jari
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>