On 22 Jul 2019, at 13:27, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 05:13:28AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 23-Jul-19 03:57, Nico Williams wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 06:25:12AM -0400, Richard Barnes wrote:
Maybe folks could provide a citation for this? Because I have
exactly the
opposite impression — that the Note Well only applies in contexts
where it
is explicitly stated that it does, e.g., official sessions.
I've long understood that Note Well applies when and only when
('WWHEN'?) it is invoked,
No. It's only a reminder of the IETF rules, and the rules apply to
all IETF activities -- all "contributions" in the IPR disclosure
case.
See the earlier responses in this thread.
Thanks. However, it's still the case that outside official IETF
meetings (interim and otherwise), Note Well applies WWHEN invoked --
surely it must be.
First, a clarification: When we say "The Note Well" (blech!), we're
referring to the summary text that we put up at the beginning of
meetings and on registration forms and the like, which is a reminder of
*all* of the IETF policies and procedures; it is not itself a policy or
procedure. So when people say, "invoke the Note Well", I'm not really
sure what they mean; perhaps just, "We are hereby announcing that IETF
rules apply here". But while I can try to "invoke the Note Well" with
all of the patrons at my local coffee shop or at my next tai chi class,
I can assure you that the folks there are not instantly bound to, for
example, start disclosing their patents to me or anyone else at the
IETF. The policies and procedures of the IETF apply when we are engaged
in an IETF activity, and the only question is when we are engaged in an
IETF activity. There's no "invoking" going on.
Also, remember that the policies and procedures really have two effects:
- They allow the IETF to say, "If you don't follow these rules, we can
kick you out of the meeting / revoke your posting privileges / stop
publication of your document / etc."
- They allow someone who is suing you, outside of the IETF context, to
tell a judge "Hey, they didn't follow the rules at the IETF", at which
point the judge can say, "Well, if you didn't follow the rules in the
IETF you deserve to pay that person damages / lose rights to your IP /
etc."
Strictly viewing from the perspective of the IETF, we only care about
the first one, but we each personally might care very deeply about the
second one.
As far as the IPR rules go, whether they apply depends on whether you
are making a contribution, and RFC 8179 has pretty extensive text about
what a contribution is: It's any "any statement made within the context
of an IETF activity, in each case that is intended to affect the IETF
Standards Process", and it goes on to say that such statements are those
that are addressed to (among others):
o WG design teams (see BCP 25) and other design teams that
intend
to deliver an output to IETF, or portions thereof,
o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
o the IAB, or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
o any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room, or discussion
board
operated by or under the auspices of the IETF, including the
IETF list itself,
And then the question is whether any particular side meeting meets one
of those definitions above. Alissa posted earlier that the IESG
considered the question and believes that the side meetings registered
on the wiki *do* count as an "IETF activity" as described above. That
means that (a) the IETF might say that you are subject to the sorts of
punishments mentioned above if you don't follow the IPR rules in such a
side meeting, and (b) if asked by a judge in a case outside of the IETF
context, IESG members are likely to say that such a side meeting was
operating under IETF rules, and the judge might take that opinion
seriously and act accordingly. In other more nebulous cases, "your
mileage may vary", as the saying goes.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
