Re: [sidr] draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt as SIDR WG document

[Terry Manderson <terry.manderson at icann.org>]

I've been thinking this over and spoken to some people who understand this
position better than I, and my position has shifted as I don't feel that an
IPR statement _changes_ the content of the ID, although it _may_ affect the
content of other drafts and IDs when the IPR is publically visible. At some
stage there may be a discussion of like documents but that shouldn't, in my
opinion, hinder the review of draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate and I feel it
is within charter as so I support its adoption as a WG item and am willing
to review even though the discussion and WG status request was hijacked and
the due date for the topic has expired.

That said, can I ask - for future use and reference - the WG-chairs to seek
a WG consensus on how it deals with IPR?

Cheers
Terry

On 31/10/09 1:36 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> General comment:
> The US Patent office procedures are such that there is a delay between
> filing and public disclosure of applications.  That may be applicable here.
> 
> the IETF procedures specifically ask folks to tell us about such patent
> applications, if they think they apply.  However, we understand that we
> can not get details at that point.
> 
> If we treat such disclosure as a priori blocked of WG consideration of a
> document, we invite denial of service attacks on our work.  If this
> document were being last called, then the question would be
> significantly more complicated.  But we are only at WG adoption, as a
> starting point for work on a topic.
> 
> (This is separate from the additional, relevant, question that Robert asks.)
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> Robert Loomans wrote:
>> Terry Manderson wrote:
>>> I feel unable to say either way at present.
>>> 
>> ...
>>> A direct link to the Patent Application would be appreciated!
>> 
>> Ditto. I'm reluctant to take any stance on this draft without more
>> information on what the patent claims.
>> 
>> Additionally, I'd like to see a clear statement as to what this draft
>> says for which the existing draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation is insufficient.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr