< draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-04.txt   draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-05.txt >
Network Working Group T. Polk Network Working Group T. Polk
Internet-Draft National Institute of Standards Internet-Draft National Institute of Standards
Intended status: Informational and Technology Intended status: Informational and Technology
Expires: November 29, 2012 P. Saint-Andre Expires: December 23, 2012 P. Saint-Andre
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
May 28, 2012 June 21, 2012
Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure
Rules Rules
draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-04 draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-05
Abstract Abstract
The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in
documents produced within the IETF stream is essential to the documents produced within the IETF stream is essential to the
accurate development of community consensus. However, this process accurate development of community consensus. However, this process
is not always followed by IETF participants. Regardless of the cause is not always followed by IETF participants. Regardless of the cause
or motivation, noncompliance with IPR disclosure rules can delay or or motivation, noncompliance with IPR disclosure rules can delay or
even derail completion of IETF specifications. This document even derail completion of IETF specifications. This document
describes some strategies for promoting compliance with the IPR describes some strategies for promoting compliance with the IPR
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 29, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Strategies for Working Group Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Strategies for Working Group Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 5 3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 5
3.2. Requesting WG Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Requesting WG Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Requesting WG Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Requesting WG Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Strategies for Individual Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 7 4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 8
4.2. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. A Note About Preliminary Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Sample Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1. General WG Reminder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Sample Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual A.1. General WG Reminder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.2. Reminder to Meeting Presenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.3. Reminder before Working Group Last Call . . . . . . . . . 12 A.3. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual
A.4. Reminder to Meeting Presenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.5. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before A.4. Reminder before Working Group Last Call . . . . . . . . . 13
IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.5. Reminder to Authors and Listed Contributors of a
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Working Group Document before IETF Last Call . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.6. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before
IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in
documents produced within the IETF stream [RFC5741] is essential to documents produced within the IETF stream [RFC5741] is essential to
the efficient and accurate development of community consensus. In the efficient and accurate development of community consensus. In
particular, ensuring that IETF working groups and participants have particular, ensuring that IETF working groups and participants have
as much information as possible regarding IPR constraints, as early as much information as possible regarding IPR constraints, as early
as possible in the process, increases the likelihood that the as possible in the process, increases the likelihood that the
community can develop an informed consensus regarding technical community can develop an informed consensus regarding technical
skipping to change at page 5, line 20 skipping to change at page 5, line 20
appeals. To better fulfill their responsibilities in the IETF appeals. To better fulfill their responsibilities in the IETF
standards process, ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries might wish to standards process, ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries might wish to
adopt strategies to encourage early disclosure consistent with the adopt strategies to encourage early disclosure consistent with the
responsibilities established in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879], such as the responsibilities established in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879], such as the
strategies described in this document. strategies described in this document.
3. Strategies for Working Group Documents 3. Strategies for Working Group Documents
Building upon the framework provided in [RFC3669], this section Building upon the framework provided in [RFC3669], this section
identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure within the identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure within the
document lifecycle for IETF working group documents. In general, document lifecycle for IETF working group documents. These
these opportunities are encountered during socialization, working opportunities are typically encountered during initial public
group adoption, Working Group Last Call (WGLC), and IETF Last Call. discussion, working group adoption, Working Group Last Call (WGLC),
and IETF Last Call. WG chairs might also want to make WG
participants aware of the importance of IPR disclosure more
generally, as exemplified by the sample message provided under
Appendix A.1.
The strategies described in this section are primarily implemented by The strategies described in this section are primarily implemented by
WG chairs. (The exceptions are strategies for IETF Last Call, which WG chairs. (The exceptions are strategies for IETF Last Call, which
would be implemented by ADs.) In cases where the WG secretary would be implemented by ADs.) In cases where the WG secretary
creates meeting agendas or initiates consensus calls, the secretary creates meeting agendas or initiates consensus calls, the secretary
might also implement these strategies. might also implement these strategies.
3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting 3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting
The first opportunity to encourage early IPR disclosure might occur The first opportunity to encourage early IPR disclosure might occur
even before a technical proposal becomes a working group document. even before a technical proposal becomes a working group document.
When IETF participants wish to socialize a personal draft in hopes of When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a
future adoption by a working group, one common strategy is to request personal draft in hopes of future adoption by a working group, one
a slot on the agenda at an upcoming face-to-face meeting. Before the common strategy is to request a slot on the agenda at an upcoming
community commits resources to reviewing and considering the draft, face-to-face meeting. Before the community commits resources to
it is very reasonable for the WG chairs to confirm (often via email) reviewing and considering the draft, it is very reasonable for the WG
that all IPR disclosures have been submitted. The chairs ought to chairs to confirm (often via email) that all IPR disclosures have
request confirmation from each of the authors and listed been submitted. The chairs ought to request confirmation from each
contributors, especially if those individuals are associated with of the authors and listed contributors, especially if those
multiple organizations. individuals are associated with multiple organizations.
If the necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have If the necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have
a choice: deny the agenda slot unless formal IPR disclosure a choice: deny the agenda slot unless formal IPR disclosure
statements are submitted, or insist on informal disclosure. One statements are submitted, or insist on informal disclosure. One
factor in this decision could be the number of revisions that have factor in this decision could be the number of revisions that have
occurred: the chairs might wish to permit presentation of a -00 draft occurred: the chairs might wish to permit presentation of a -00 draft
with informal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through with informal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through
multiple revision cycles. If informal disclosure is allowed, the multiple revision cycles. If informal disclosure is allowed, the
chairs ought to make sure that the disclosure is documented in the chairs ought to make sure that the disclosure is documented in the
minutes, and ought to encourage submission of formal disclosure minutes, and ought to encourage submission of formal disclosure
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
In some cases, an IETF participant has not yet submitted an Internet- In some cases, an IETF participant has not yet submitted an Internet-
Draft but might still request a slot on the agenda to discuss a Draft but might still request a slot on the agenda to discuss a
proposal for a new draft, or a new feature for an existing working proposal for a new draft, or a new feature for an existing working
group document. Here again, it is very reasonable for the WG chairs group document. Here again, it is very reasonable for the WG chairs
to confirm, before approving the agenda slot, that all IPR claims to confirm, before approving the agenda slot, that all IPR claims
have been disclosed (likely in an informal manner as described above, have been disclosed (likely in an informal manner as described above,
since the participant has not yet made a Contribution as defined by since the participant has not yet made a Contribution as defined by
the Internet Standards Process [RFC3979]). the Internet Standards Process [RFC3979]).
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.2.
3.2. Requesting WG Adoption 3.2. Requesting WG Adoption
When a technical proposal is considered for adoption by a working When a technical proposal is considered for adoption by a working
group, the chairs have an opportunity to confirm (or reconfirm) IPR group, the chairs have an opportunity to confirm (or reconfirm) IPR
compliance with authors and listed contributors. In addition, the compliance with authors and listed contributors. In addition, the
chairs might wish to explicitly ask the WG participants if anyone is chairs might wish to explicitly ask the WG participants if anyone is
aware of IPR that is associated with the proposal. aware of IPR that is associated with the proposal.
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.3.
3.3. Requesting WG Last Call 3.3. Requesting WG Last Call
Working Group Last Call is a particularly significant milestone for a Working Group Last Call is a particularly significant milestone for a
working group document, measuring consensus within the working group working group document, measuring consensus within the working group
one final time. If IPR disclosure statements have not been one final time. If IPR disclosure statements have not been
submitted, the judgement of consensus by the chairs would be less submitted, the judgement of consensus by the chairs would be less
than reliable. Even if procedures such as those described above have than reliable because it would be based on incomplete assumptions.
been implemented to promote IPR disclosure during socialization and Even if procedures such as those described above have been
adoption, features might have evolved in a way that introduces new implemented to promote IPR disclosure during initial public
IPR concerns. In addition, new participants with knowledge of IPR discussion and adoption, features might have evolved in a way that
claims might have become active in the working group. Therefore the introduces new IPR concerns. In addition, new participants with
WG chairs might wish to reconfirm with each of the authors and listed knowledge of IPR claims might have become active in the working
contributors that appropriate IPR disclosure statements have been group. Therefore the WG chairs might wish to reconfirm with each of
filed, even if they all work for the same organization. The chairs the authors and listed contributors that appropriate IPR disclosure
might also wish to include a reminder about the importance of IPR statements have been filed, even if they all work for the same
disclosures in any WGLC message communicated to the working group. organization. The chairs might also wish to include a reminder about
(Note: If IPR disclosure statements have been filed, the chairs might the importance of IPR disclosures in any WGLC message communicated to
wish to include a link in the WGLC message to ensure that the the working group. (Note: If IPR disclosure statements have been
consensus call reflects this information.) filed, the chairs might wish to include a link in the WGLC message to
ensure that the consensus call reflects this information.)
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.4.
3.4. AD Review 3.4. AD Review
After successfully completing WGLC, a working group document is After successfully completing WGLC, a working group document is
forwarded to the appropriate Area Director for AD review, with a forwarded to the appropriate Area Director for AD review, with a
request that the AD process the document for publication as an RFC. request that the AD process the document for publication as an RFC.
Such a publication request is accompanied by a Document Shepherd Such a publication request is accompanied by a Document Shepherd
Write-up as required by [RFC4858] using the template found at Write-up as required by [RFC4858] using the template found at
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html>. At the time of <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html>. At the time of
this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to answer the this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to answer the
following question: following question:
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Shepherds ought to be asking authors that question directly.
Additionally, the AD can ask the WG chairs whether they took explicit Additionally, the AD can ask the WG chairs whether they took explicit
action to promote disclosure of IPR. If the answer to the write-up action to promote disclosure of IPR.
question is not favorable, or if the chairs did not take any of the
actions listed above, the AD might choose to contact the authors and If the answer to the write-up question is not favorable, or if the
listed contributors to confirm that the appropriate IPR disclosure chairs did not take any of the actions listed above, the AD might
statements have been filed before advancing the document through the choose to contact the authors and listed contributors to confirm that
publication process. the appropriate IPR disclosure statements have been filed before
advancing the document through the publication process.
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.5.
3.5. IETF Last Call 3.5. IETF Last Call
IETF Last Call is the mechanism used by the the AD and the IESG as a IETF Last Call is the mechanism used by the the AD and the IESG as a
whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It is critical that the whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It is critical that the
community have easy access to all related IPR statements when community have easy access to all related IPR statements when
considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools automatically considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools automatically
include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly linked to the draft include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly linked to the draft
when the default IETF Last Call message is generated. If the AD when the default IETF Last Call message is generated. If the AD
edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure statements ought to edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure statements ought to
be preserved. be preserved.
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions 4. Strategies for Individual Submissions
This section identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure This section identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure
within the IETF document lifecycle for documents that are processed within the IETF document lifecycle for documents that are processed
outside the context of a working group (so-called "individual outside the context of a working group (so-called "individual
submissions"). In general, these opportunities are encountered submissions"). In general, these opportunities are encountered
during socialization, area director review, and IETF Last Call. during initial public discussion, area director review, and IETF Last
Call.
4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting 4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting
When IETF participants wish to socialize a personal draft not When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a
intended for a working group, it is still common to request a slot on personal draft not intended for a working group, it is still common
the agenda at an upcoming face-to-face meeting. These requests might to request a slot on the agenda at an upcoming face-to-face meeting.
be made to related working groups or area meetings, or even during These requests might be made to related working groups or area
plenary time. Before the community commits resources to reviewing meetings, or even during plenary time. Before the community commits
and considering the draft, it is very reasonable for the chairs of resources to reviewing and considering the draft, it is very
that meeting (WG chair, AD, IESG chair, or IAB chair) to confirm that reasonable for the chairs of that meeting (WG chair, AD, IESG chair,
all IPR disclosures have been submitted. or IAB chair) to confirm that all IPR disclosures have been
submitted.
The meeting chairs ought to request confirmation from each of the The meeting chairs ought to request confirmation from each of the
authors and listed contributors, especially if those individuals are authors and listed contributors, especially if those individuals are
associated with multiple organizations. Where the presentation associated with multiple organizations. Where the presentation
covers a concept that has not yet been documented as an Internet- covers a concept that has not yet been documented as an Internet-
Draft, the chairs ought to at least request informal disclosure from Draft, the chairs ought to at least request informal disclosure from
the authors and listed contributors, as described above. the authors and listed contributors, as described above.
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.2.
4.2. AD Review 4.2. AD Review
When considering the possibility of sponsoring an individual When considering the possibility of sponsoring an individual
submission, an AD ought to confirm that all IPR disclosures have been submission, an AD ought to confirm that all IPR disclosures have been
submitted. The AD ought to require confirmation from each of the submitted. The AD ought to require confirmation from each of the
authors and listed contributors, even if those individuals are authors and listed contributors, even if those individuals are
associated with the same organization. As with WG documents, a associated with the same organization. As with WG documents, a
Document Shepherd Write-up is also required for AD sponsored Document Shepherd Write-up is also required for AD sponsored
documents, following the template at documents, following the template at
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/individual-doc-writeup.html>. At <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/individual-doc-writeup.html>. At
the time of this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to the time of this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to
answer the following question: answer the following question:
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.6.
4.3. IETF Last Call 4.3. IETF Last Call
As with working group documents, IETF Last Call is the mechanism used As with working group documents, IETF Last Call is the mechanism used
by the AD and the IESG as a whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It by the AD and the IESG as a whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It
is critical that the community have easy access to all related IPR is critical that the community have easy access to all related IPR
statements when considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools statements when considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools
automatically include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly automatically include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly
linked to the draft when the default IETF Last Call message is linked to the draft when the default IETF Last Call message is
generated. If the AD edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure generated. If the AD edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure
statements ought to be preserved. statements ought to be preserved.
5. Conclusions 5. A Note About Preliminary Disclosures
Early disclosures are not necessarily complete disclosures. Indeed,
[RFC3979] can be read as encouraging "preliminary disclosure" (e.g.,
when a new patent application is made), yet a preliminary disclosure
might not be updated as new information becomes available later in
the standardization process (e.g., when a patent is actually
granted). To help prevent early IPR disclosures from becoming stale
or incomplete, at important junctures in the standardization process
(e.g., at Working Group adoption, before Working Group Last Call, and
before IETF Last Call) WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to request
that the Executive Director of the IETF contact those who submitted
early IPR disclosures about updating their disclosures.
6. Conclusions
WG chairs and ADs are not expected to enforce IPR disclosure rules, WG chairs and ADs are not expected to enforce IPR disclosure rules,
and this document does suggest that they take on such a role. and this document does suggest that they take on such a role.
However, lack of compliance with IPR disclosure policies can have a However, lack of compliance with IPR disclosure policies can have a
significant impact on the Internet Standards Process. To support the significant impact on the Internet Standards Process. To support the
efficient development of IETF standards and avoid unnecessary delays, efficient development of IETF standards and avoid unnecessary delays,
WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to look for opportunities to promote WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to look for opportunities to promote
awareness and compliance with the IETF's IPR policies. The awareness and compliance with the IETF's IPR policies. The
strategies in this document promote compliance by raising the strategies in this document promote compliance by raising the
question of IPR disclosure at critical junctures in the question of IPR disclosure at critical junctures in the
standardization process. standardization process.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document suggests strategies for promoting compliance with IPR This document suggests strategies for promoting compliance with IPR
disclosure rules during the IETF standards process. These procedures disclosure rules during the IETF standards process. These procedures
do not have a direct impact on the security of the Internet. do not have a direct impact on the security of the Internet.
7. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF [RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005. Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.
[RFC4879] Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure [RFC4879] Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007. Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC1602] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process [RFC1602] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process
-- Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994. -- Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 47
[RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin, [RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin,
"Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to
Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007. Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007.
[RFC5741] Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers, [RFC5741] Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers,
and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009. and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.
[Sanctions] [Sanctions]
Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy",
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 (work in progress), draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-06 (work in progress),
April 2012. June 2012.
Appendix A. Sample Messages Appendix A. Sample Messages
This section provides sample messages of the kind that ADs, WG This section provides sample messages of the kind that ADs, WG
chairs, and WG secretaries can send to meeting presenters, document chairs, and WG secretaries can send to meeting presenters, document
authors, document editors, listed contributors, and working groups authors, document editors, listed contributors, and working groups
during various stages of the Internet Standards Process. The during various stages of the Internet Standards Process. The
messages use a hypothetical working group called the "FOO WG", messages use a hypothetical working group called the "FOO WG",
hypothetical WG chairs named "Alice" and "Bob", a hypothetical author hypothetical WG chairs named "Alice" and "Bob", a hypothetical author
named "Nigel Throckmorton", a hypothetical AD named "Christopher", named "Nigel Throckmorton", a hypothetical AD named "Christopher",
skipping to change at page 10, line 49 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
Please note that these messages are only reminders of existing IETF Please note that these messages are only reminders of existing IETF
policy, and we are all bound by that policy even in the absence of policy, and we are all bound by that policy even in the absence of
such reminder messages. Everyone who participates in the Internet such reminder messages. Everyone who participates in the Internet
Standards Process (whether by posting to IETF mailing lists, Standards Process (whether by posting to IETF mailing lists,
authoring documents, attending IETF meetings, or in other ways) needs authoring documents, attending IETF meetings, or in other ways) needs
to be aware of the IETF rules with regard to IPR. These rules are to be aware of the IETF rules with regard to IPR. These rules are
described in BCP79 and can be referenced through described in BCP79 and can be referenced through
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html>. In addition, online tools for <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html>. In addition, online tools for
filing IPR disclosures can be found at filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. Finally, existing
disclosures can be searched online at
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/>.
Also note that these are personal requirements applying to all IETF Also note that these are personal requirements applying to all IETF
participants as individuals, and that these requirements also apply participants as individuals, and that these requirements also apply
to all participants in the FOO WG. to all participants in the FOO WG.
Thanks, Thanks,
Alice and Bob Alice and Bob
(as FOO WG co-chairs) (as FOO WG co-chairs)
A.2. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual Internet-Draft A.2. Reminder to Meeting Presenter
Subject: IPR about draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar
Dear Nigel,
I have received your request to give a talk about
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar at the next IETF meeting. Before
approving this request, I would like to check whether there are any
claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on this document.
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to approve
your request for a slot on the agenda until I have received a reply
from you and any listed contributor.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks,
Alice
(as FOO WG co-chair)
A.3. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual Internet-Draft
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle
Dear FOO WG, and Especially Authors and Contributors: Dear FOO WG, and Especially Authors and Contributors:
As you can see from the consensus call the WG chairs have sent out, As you can see from the consensus call the WG chairs have sent out,
the authors have asked for draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle to be the authors have asked for draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle to be
considered for adoption as a WG document. We would like to check considered for adoption as a WG document. We would like to check
whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the
document that need to be disclosed. document that need to be disclosed.
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 28
for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP79. Please do not reply for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP79. Please do not reply
unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure. unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Alice Alice
(as FOO WG co-chair) (as FOO WG co-chair)
A.3. Reminder before Working Group Last Call A.4. Reminder before Working Group Last Call
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle
Dear FOO WG: Dear FOO WG:
The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group
Last Call. Before issuing the Working Group Last Call, we would like Last Call. Before issuing the Working Group Last Call, we would like
to check whether any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on to check whether any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on
the document have not yet been disclosed. the document have not yet been disclosed.
skipping to change at page 12, line 41 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks, Thanks,
Bob Bob
(as FOO WG co-chair) (as FOO WG co-chair)
A.4. Reminder to Meeting Presenter A.5. Reminder to Authors and Listed Contributors of a Working Group
Document before IETF Last Call
Subject: IPR about draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle
Dear Nigel, Dear Authors and Contributors (Chairs and Shepherd cc'd),
I have received your request to give a talk about Before proceeding with your request to issue an IETF Last Call on
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar at the next IETF meeting. Before draft-ietf-foo-wiffle, I would like to check whether there are any
approving this request, I would like to check whether there are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document.
claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on this document.
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in draft-ietf-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.) for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to approve personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to advance
your request for a slot on the agenda until I have received a reply this document to the next stage until I have received a reply from
from you and any listed contributor. you and any listed contributor.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks, Thanks,
Christopher Christopher
(as AD) (as AD)
A.5. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before IETF Last A.6. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before IETF Last
Call Call
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar
Dear Nigel, Dear Nigel,
Before proceeding with your request for AD sponsoring of Before proceeding with your request for AD sponsoring of
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar, I would like to check whether there draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar, I would like to check whether there
are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document. are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document.
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.) for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
skipping to change at page 14, line 7 skipping to change at page 15, line 29
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks, Thanks,
Christopher Christopher
(as AD) (as AD)
Appendix B. Acknowledgements Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Scott Brim, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Russ Housley, Thanks to Scott Brim, Stewart Bryant, Benoit Claise, Adrian Farrel,
Subramanian Moonesamy, Thomas Narten, Pete Resnick, and Stephan Stephen Farrell, Russ Housley, Subramanian Moonesamy, Thomas Narten,
Wenger for their feedback; and to Loa Andersson, Ross Callon, and Pete Resnick, and Stephan Wenger for their feedback; to Loa
George Swallow for drafts of some of the sample email messages. Andersson, Ross Callon, and George Swallow for drafts of some of the
sample email messages; and to Stephen Farrell for shepherding the
document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Tim Polk Tim Polk
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, MS 8930 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8930
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930
USA USA
Email: tim.polk@nist.gov Email: tim.polk@nist.gov
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
93 lines changed or deleted 171 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/