idnits 2.17.1 draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 21, 2012) is 4327 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3979 (Obsoleted by RFC 8179) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4879 (Obsoleted by RFC 8179) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1602 (Obsoleted by RFC 2026) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5741 (Obsoleted by RFC 7841) == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-06 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Polk 3 Internet-Draft National Institute of Standards 4 Intended status: Informational and Technology 5 Expires: December 23, 2012 P. Saint-Andre 6 Cisco Systems, Inc. 7 June 21, 2012 9 Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure 10 Rules 11 draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-05 13 Abstract 15 The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in 16 documents produced within the IETF stream is essential to the 17 accurate development of community consensus. However, this process 18 is not always followed by IETF participants. Regardless of the cause 19 or motivation, noncompliance with IPR disclosure rules can delay or 20 even derail completion of IETF specifications. This document 21 describes some strategies for promoting compliance with the IPR 22 disclosure rules. These strategies are primarily intended for use by 23 area directors, working group chairs, and working group secretaries. 25 Status of this Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2012. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. Strategies for Working Group Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 5 64 3.2. Requesting WG Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 3.3. Requesting WG Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 3.4. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 3.5. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 4. Strategies for Individual Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 8 70 4.2. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 4.3. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 5. A Note About Preliminary Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 79 Appendix A. Sample Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 A.1. General WG Reminder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 81 A.2. Reminder to Meeting Presenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 A.3. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual 83 Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 A.4. Reminder before Working Group Last Call . . . . . . . . . 13 85 A.5. Reminder to Authors and Listed Contributors of a 86 Working Group Document before IETF Last Call . . . . . . . 14 87 A.6. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before 88 IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 89 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 90 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 92 1. Introduction 94 The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in 95 documents produced within the IETF stream [RFC5741] is essential to 96 the efficient and accurate development of community consensus. In 97 particular, ensuring that IETF working groups and participants have 98 as much information as possible regarding IPR constraints, as early 99 as possible in the process, increases the likelihood that the 100 community can develop an informed consensus regarding technical 101 proposals. Statements to that effect appear in both the second and 102 third revisions of the Internet Standards Process ([RFC1602], Section 103 5.5, Clause (B) and [RFC2026], Section 10.4, Clause (B)). 105 However, sometimes IPR disclosures do not occur at the earliest 106 possible stage in the IETF process. There are many reasons why an 107 individual might not disclose IPR early in the process: for example, 108 through a simple oversight, to introduce delay, or to subvert the 109 emergence of consensus. 111 Regardless of the cause or motivation, noncompliance with IPR 112 disclosure rules can delay or even derail completion of IETF 113 specifications. Disclosure of IPR after significant decisions, such 114 as Working Group Last Call (WGLC), might lead to reconsideration of 115 those actions. As one example, a working group (WG) might change 116 course and use a previously rejected technical proposal with less 117 onerous licensing requirements. Such "course corrections" produce 118 unnecessary delays in the standardization process. 120 This document suggests some strategies for promoting compliance with 121 the IETF's IPR disclosure rules and thereby avoiding such delays. 122 These strategies are primarily intended for use by area directors 123 (ADs), WG chairs, and WG secretaries. 125 These strategies are focused on promoting early disclosure by 126 document authors, since late disclosure involving authors has 127 historically caused significant delays in the standardization 128 process. Many of these strategies also promote early disclosure by 129 other IETF contributors. 131 Naturally, even if ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries do not apply 132 the strategies described in this document, IETF contributors are 133 still bound by the rules defined in BCP 79 (see [RFC3979] and 134 [RFC4879]). This document does not modify those rules, nor does it 135 normatively extend those rules; it merely provides suggestions 136 intended to aid ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries. 138 By intent, this document does not claim to define best current 139 practices; instead, it suggests strategies that ADs, WG chairs, and 140 WG secretaries might find useful. With sufficient use and 141 appropriate modification to incorporate the lessons of experience, 142 these strategies might someday form the basis for documentation of 143 best current practices. 145 This document does not consider the parallel, but important, issue of 146 potential actions that can be taken by the IETF itself for lack of 147 conformance with the IETF's IPR policy. That topic is discussed in 148 [Sanctions]. 150 At the time of this writing, the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) 151 follows the same IPR disclosure rules as the IETF (see 152 ); therefore, the stategies described here might 153 also be appropriate for use by IRTF Research Group chairs. 155 1.1. Terminology 157 This document relies on the definitions provided in Section 1 of 158 [RFC3979]. 160 The term "formal disclosure" refers to an IPR disclosure statement 161 that has been officially submitted by using the IPR disclosure tools 162 currently available at or 163 by sending a message to . The term 164 "informal disclosure" refers to a statement that is provided in a 165 less official manner, such as orally during a presentation, in 166 writing within presentation materials, or posted via email to the 167 relevant discussion list before a presentation. 169 Since this document is purely informational, by intent it does not 170 use the conformance language described in [RFC2119]. 172 2. Background 174 The responsibilities of IETF contributors regarding IPR disclosure 175 are documented in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879]. These documents do not 176 assign any further responsibilities to ADs, WG chairs, and WG 177 secretaries, other than those imposed by their roles as contributors 178 or participants. However, late disclosure of IPR has a direct impact 179 on the effectiveness of working groups, WG chairs, and ADs. 181 According to [RFC2418], WG chairs are responsible for "making forward 182 progress through a fair and open process" and ADs are responsible for 183 "ensuring that working groups in their area produce ... timely 184 output"; in addition, because WG chairs can appoint one or more WG 185 secretaries to help them with the day-to-day business of running the 186 working group (see [RFC2418]), some of the actions suggested in this 187 document might fall to WG secretaries. 189 IPR disclosure at the earliest possible time is an essential feature 190 of a "fair and open process", and late disclosure can impede timely 191 output since it can cause the WG to revisit previous decisions, 192 needlessly revise technical specifications, and face the prospect of 193 appeals. To better fulfill their responsibilities in the IETF 194 standards process, ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries might wish to 195 adopt strategies to encourage early disclosure consistent with the 196 responsibilities established in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879], such as the 197 strategies described in this document. 199 3. Strategies for Working Group Documents 201 Building upon the framework provided in [RFC3669], this section 202 identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure within the 203 document lifecycle for IETF working group documents. These 204 opportunities are typically encountered during initial public 205 discussion, working group adoption, Working Group Last Call (WGLC), 206 and IETF Last Call. WG chairs might also want to make WG 207 participants aware of the importance of IPR disclosure more 208 generally, as exemplified by the sample message provided under 209 Appendix A.1. 211 The strategies described in this section are primarily implemented by 212 WG chairs. (The exceptions are strategies for IETF Last Call, which 213 would be implemented by ADs.) In cases where the WG secretary 214 creates meeting agendas or initiates consensus calls, the secretary 215 might also implement these strategies. 217 3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting 219 The first opportunity to encourage early IPR disclosure might occur 220 even before a technical proposal becomes a working group document. 222 When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a 223 personal draft in hopes of future adoption by a working group, one 224 common strategy is to request a slot on the agenda at an upcoming 225 face-to-face meeting. Before the community commits resources to 226 reviewing and considering the draft, it is very reasonable for the WG 227 chairs to confirm (often via email) that all IPR disclosures have 228 been submitted. The chairs ought to request confirmation from each 229 of the authors and listed contributors, especially if those 230 individuals are associated with multiple organizations. 232 If the necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have 233 a choice: deny the agenda slot unless formal IPR disclosure 234 statements are submitted, or insist on informal disclosure. One 235 factor in this decision could be the number of revisions that have 236 occurred: the chairs might wish to permit presentation of a -00 draft 237 with informal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through 238 multiple revision cycles. If informal disclosure is allowed, the 239 chairs ought to make sure that the disclosure is documented in the 240 minutes, and ought to encourage submission of formal disclosure 241 statements after the meeting. 243 In some cases, an IETF participant has not yet submitted an Internet- 244 Draft but might still request a slot on the agenda to discuss a 245 proposal for a new draft, or a new feature for an existing working 246 group document. Here again, it is very reasonable for the WG chairs 247 to confirm, before approving the agenda slot, that all IPR claims 248 have been disclosed (likely in an informal manner as described above, 249 since the participant has not yet made a Contribution as defined by 250 the Internet Standards Process [RFC3979]). 252 A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is 253 provided under Appendix A.2. 255 3.2. Requesting WG Adoption 257 When a technical proposal is considered for adoption by a working 258 group, the chairs have an opportunity to confirm (or reconfirm) IPR 259 compliance with authors and listed contributors. In addition, the 260 chairs might wish to explicitly ask the WG participants if anyone is 261 aware of IPR that is associated with the proposal. 263 A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is 264 provided under Appendix A.3. 266 3.3. Requesting WG Last Call 268 Working Group Last Call is a particularly significant milestone for a 269 working group document, measuring consensus within the working group 270 one final time. If IPR disclosure statements have not been 271 submitted, the judgement of consensus by the chairs would be less 272 than reliable because it would be based on incomplete assumptions. 273 Even if procedures such as those described above have been 274 implemented to promote IPR disclosure during initial public 275 discussion and adoption, features might have evolved in a way that 276 introduces new IPR concerns. In addition, new participants with 277 knowledge of IPR claims might have become active in the working 278 group. Therefore the WG chairs might wish to reconfirm with each of 279 the authors and listed contributors that appropriate IPR disclosure 280 statements have been filed, even if they all work for the same 281 organization. The chairs might also wish to include a reminder about 282 the importance of IPR disclosures in any WGLC message communicated to 283 the working group. (Note: If IPR disclosure statements have been 284 filed, the chairs might wish to include a link in the WGLC message to 285 ensure that the consensus call reflects this information.) 287 A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is 288 provided under Appendix A.4. 290 3.4. AD Review 292 After successfully completing WGLC, a working group document is 293 forwarded to the appropriate Area Director for AD review, with a 294 request that the AD process the document for publication as an RFC. 295 Such a publication request is accompanied by a Document Shepherd 296 Write-up as required by [RFC4858] using the template found at 297 . At the time of 298 this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to answer the 299 following question: 301 (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR 302 disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of 303 BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. 305 Shepherds ought to be asking authors that question directly. 306 Additionally, the AD can ask the WG chairs whether they took explicit 307 action to promote disclosure of IPR. 309 If the answer to the write-up question is not favorable, or if the 310 chairs did not take any of the actions listed above, the AD might 311 choose to contact the authors and listed contributors to confirm that 312 the appropriate IPR disclosure statements have been filed before 313 advancing the document through the publication process. 315 A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is 316 provided under Appendix A.5. 318 3.5. IETF Last Call 320 IETF Last Call is the mechanism used by the the AD and the IESG as a 321 whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It is critical that the 322 community have easy access to all related IPR statements when 323 considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools automatically 324 include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly linked to the draft 325 when the default IETF Last Call message is generated. If the AD 326 edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure statements ought to 327 be preserved. 329 4. Strategies for Individual Submissions 331 This section identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure 332 within the IETF document lifecycle for documents that are processed 333 outside the context of a working group (so-called "individual 334 submissions"). In general, these opportunities are encountered 335 during initial public discussion, area director review, and IETF Last 336 Call. 338 4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting 340 When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a 341 personal draft not intended for a working group, it is still common 342 to request a slot on the agenda at an upcoming face-to-face meeting. 343 These requests might be made to related working groups or area 344 meetings, or even during plenary time. Before the community commits 345 resources to reviewing and considering the draft, it is very 346 reasonable for the chairs of that meeting (WG chair, AD, IESG chair, 347 or IAB chair) to confirm that all IPR disclosures have been 348 submitted. 350 The meeting chairs ought to request confirmation from each of the 351 authors and listed contributors, especially if those individuals are 352 associated with multiple organizations. Where the presentation 353 covers a concept that has not yet been documented as an Internet- 354 Draft, the chairs ought to at least request informal disclosure from 355 the authors and listed contributors, as described above. 357 A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is 358 provided under Appendix A.2. 360 4.2. AD Review 362 When considering the possibility of sponsoring an individual 363 submission, an AD ought to confirm that all IPR disclosures have been 364 submitted. The AD ought to require confirmation from each of the 365 authors and listed contributors, even if those individuals are 366 associated with the same organization. As with WG documents, a 367 Document Shepherd Write-up is also required for AD sponsored 368 documents, following the template at 369 . At 370 the time of this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to 371 answer the following question: 373 (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR 374 disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of 375 BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. 377 A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is 378 provided under Appendix A.6. 380 4.3. IETF Last Call 382 As with working group documents, IETF Last Call is the mechanism used 383 by the AD and the IESG as a whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It 384 is critical that the community have easy access to all related IPR 385 statements when considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools 386 automatically include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly 387 linked to the draft when the default IETF Last Call message is 388 generated. If the AD edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure 389 statements ought to be preserved. 391 5. A Note About Preliminary Disclosures 393 Early disclosures are not necessarily complete disclosures. Indeed, 394 [RFC3979] can be read as encouraging "preliminary disclosure" (e.g., 395 when a new patent application is made), yet a preliminary disclosure 396 might not be updated as new information becomes available later in 397 the standardization process (e.g., when a patent is actually 398 granted). To help prevent early IPR disclosures from becoming stale 399 or incomplete, at important junctures in the standardization process 400 (e.g., at Working Group adoption, before Working Group Last Call, and 401 before IETF Last Call) WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to request 402 that the Executive Director of the IETF contact those who submitted 403 early IPR disclosures about updating their disclosures. 405 6. Conclusions 407 WG chairs and ADs are not expected to enforce IPR disclosure rules, 408 and this document does suggest that they take on such a role. 409 However, lack of compliance with IPR disclosure policies can have a 410 significant impact on the Internet Standards Process. To support the 411 efficient development of IETF standards and avoid unnecessary delays, 412 WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to look for opportunities to promote 413 awareness and compliance with the IETF's IPR policies. The 414 strategies in this document promote compliance by raising the 415 question of IPR disclosure at critical junctures in the 416 standardization process. 418 7. Security Considerations 420 This document suggests strategies for promoting compliance with IPR 421 disclosure rules during the IETF standards process. These procedures 422 do not have a direct impact on the security of the Internet. 424 8. IANA Considerations 426 This document has no actions for IANA. 428 9. References 430 9.1. Normative References 432 [RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 433 Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005. 435 [RFC4879] Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure 436 Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007. 438 9.2. Informative References 440 [RFC1602] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process 441 -- Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994. 443 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 444 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 446 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 447 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 449 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 450 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 452 [RFC3669] Brim, S., "Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual 453 Property Issues", RFC 3669, February 2004. 455 [RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin, 456 "Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to 457 Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007. 459 [RFC5741] Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers, 460 and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009. 462 [Sanctions] 463 Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for 464 Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", 465 draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-06 (work in progress), 466 June 2012. 468 Appendix A. Sample Messages 470 This section provides sample messages of the kind that ADs, WG 471 chairs, and WG secretaries can send to meeting presenters, document 472 authors, document editors, listed contributors, and working groups 473 during various stages of the Internet Standards Process. The 474 messages use a hypothetical working group called the "FOO WG", 475 hypothetical WG chairs named "Alice" and "Bob", a hypothetical author 476 named "Nigel Throckmorton", a hypothetical AD named "Christopher", 477 and hypothetical documents about a hypothetical technology called 478 "wiffle"; any resemblance to actual working groups, WG chairs, ADs, 479 or documents is strictly coincidental. The last two messages might 480 be appropriate for sending to individuals who have requested a slot 481 on the agenda during an IETF meeting or who have requested AD 482 sponsorship of an individual submission. 484 A.1. General WG Reminder 486 Subject: Reminder about IETF IPR Policy 488 Dear FOO WG: 490 As FOO WG chairs, we would like to minimize or hopefully even 491 eliminate late disclosures relating to documents under consideration 492 within the FOO WG. Therefore you might see us send "reminder" 493 messages in the future to authors or to the FOO WG email list as a 494 whole, asking people whether they know of Intellectual Property 495 Rights (IPR) relating to specific documents. In order to comply with 496 IETF processes and avoid unnecessary delays, document authors and 497 contributors to our discussions in the FOO WG are asked to take pay 498 careful attention to these messages and to reply in a timely fashion. 500 Please note that these messages are only reminders of existing IETF 501 policy, and we are all bound by that policy even in the absence of 502 such reminder messages. Everyone who participates in the Internet 503 Standards Process (whether by posting to IETF mailing lists, 504 authoring documents, attending IETF meetings, or in other ways) needs 505 to be aware of the IETF rules with regard to IPR. These rules are 506 described in BCP79 and can be referenced through 507 . In addition, online tools for 508 filing IPR disclosures can be found at 509 . Finally, existing 510 disclosures can be searched online at 511 . 513 Also note that these are personal requirements applying to all IETF 514 participants as individuals, and that these requirements also apply 515 to all participants in the FOO WG. 517 Thanks, 519 Alice and Bob 521 (as FOO WG co-chairs) 523 A.2. Reminder to Meeting Presenter 525 Subject: IPR about draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar 527 Dear Nigel, 529 I have received your request to give a talk about 530 draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar at the next IETF meeting. Before 531 approving this request, I would like to check whether there are any 532 claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on this document. 534 Are you aware of any IPR that applies to 535 draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 536 compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 537 for more details.) 539 Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are 540 personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to approve 541 your request for a slot on the agenda until I have received a reply 542 from you and any listed contributor. 544 Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 545 . 547 Thanks, 549 Alice 551 (as FOO WG co-chair) 553 A.3. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual Internet-Draft 555 Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle 557 Dear FOO WG, and Especially Authors and Contributors: 559 As you can see from the consensus call the WG chairs have sent out, 560 the authors have asked for draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle to be 561 considered for adoption as a WG document. We would like to check 562 whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the 563 document that need to be disclosed. 565 Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to 566 draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 567 compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 568 for more details.) 570 If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, 571 please reply to this email message regardless of whether or not you 572 are personally aware of any relevant IPR. We might not be able to 573 advance this document to the next stage until we have received a 574 reply from each author and listed contributor. 576 If you are on the FOO WG email list but are not an author or listed 577 contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity 578 for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP79. Please do not reply 579 unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure. 581 Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 582 . 584 Alice 586 (as FOO WG co-chair) 588 A.4. Reminder before Working Group Last Call 590 Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle 592 Dear FOO WG: 594 The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group 595 Last Call. Before issuing the Working Group Last Call, we would like 596 to check whether any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on 597 the document have not yet been disclosed. 599 Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to 600 draft-ietf-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 601 compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 602 for more details.) 604 If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, 605 please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are 606 personally aware of any relevant IPR. We might not be able to 607 advance this document to the next stage until we have received a 608 reply from each author and listed contributor. 610 If you are on the FOO WG email list but are not an author or listed 611 contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity 612 for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP79. Please do not reply 613 unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure. 615 Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 616 . 618 Thanks, 620 Bob 622 (as FOO WG co-chair) 624 A.5. Reminder to Authors and Listed Contributors of a Working Group 625 Document before IETF Last Call 627 Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle 629 Dear Authors and Contributors (Chairs and Shepherd cc'd), 631 Before proceeding with your request to issue an IETF Last Call on 632 draft-ietf-foo-wiffle, I would like to check whether there are any 633 claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document. 635 Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to 636 draft-ietf-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 637 compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 638 for more details.) 640 Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are 641 personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to advance 642 this document to the next stage until I have received a reply from 643 you and any listed contributor. 645 Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 646 . 648 Thanks, 650 Christopher 652 (as AD) 654 A.6. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before IETF Last 655 Call 657 Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar 659 Dear Nigel, 660 Before proceeding with your request for AD sponsoring of 661 draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar, I would like to check whether there 662 are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document. 664 Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to 665 draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 666 compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 667 for more details.) 669 Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are 670 personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to advance 671 this document to the next stage until I have received a reply from 672 you and any listed contributor. 674 Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 675 . 677 Thanks, 679 Christopher 681 (as AD) 683 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 685 Thanks to Scott Brim, Stewart Bryant, Benoit Claise, Adrian Farrel, 686 Stephen Farrell, Russ Housley, Subramanian Moonesamy, Thomas Narten, 687 Pete Resnick, and Stephan Wenger for their feedback; to Loa 688 Andersson, Ross Callon, and George Swallow for drafts of some of the 689 sample email messages; and to Stephen Farrell for shepherding the 690 document. 692 Authors' Addresses 694 Tim Polk 695 National Institute of Standards and Technology 696 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8930 697 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 698 USA 700 Email: tim.polk@nist.gov 701 Peter Saint-Andre 702 Cisco Systems, Inc. 703 1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600 704 Denver, CO 80202 705 USA 707 Phone: +1-303-308-3282 708 Email: psaintan@cisco.com