[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPR disclosures for individual submissions

Sam Hartman wrote:
"Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:

    Harald> The formal rules are reasonably clear: Once the IPR
    Harald> disclosure is filed, the responsibility of the person who
    Harald> knows about the IPR is over.
Understood.  I was looking for informal rules about what to do when
IPR is filed.


    Harald> There is no formal statement about who has the
    Harald> responsibility to notice that IPR has been filed and make
    Harald> a judgment about whether it matters or not; I suspect
    Harald> (using common sense) that this SHOULD be done by the WG
    Harald> chair before submission to the IESG in the case of WG
    Harald> submissions, and by the AD processing the
    Harald> request-to-publish in the case of individual submissions -
    Harald> and discussion should go wherever discussion of technical
    Harald> issues with the document goes.

Do you think that typically there should be such discussion even if it
is just "BTW, there was IPR filed but I don't think it matters?"  Or
do you think it is OK for the AD or WG chair to consider the issue and
decide on their authority that the IPR doesn't matter?
I'd tend to err on the side of caution, and discuss/mention if I wonder about it - a disclosure that says "free for all implementors, all purposes, no license required" doesn't seem to require a discussion, but most disclosures are more convoluted than that..... but I think it should be a judgment call, not a mandatory action. But I'd rather have advice from people who've been in the situation than to use my imagination about it..... anyone?



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg