Subject: [I2nsf] IPR declarations

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:54:52 -0000

Thanks to Sue and Med for their declarations of no knowledge of IPR in the two
I-Ds we are proposing to adopt.

Can I take this opportunity to remind you all of your responsibilities with
respect to IPR in IETF work.

If you are aware of IPR owned by you or your employer that covers any of the
work in the working group you need to read
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt to determine your duties to disclose
the IPR for the rest of the community to consider. The obligations under that
RFC are clear for anyone making a contribution on the subject, and for the
avoidance of doubt that includes anyone who is names as an author or contributor
on an I-D, and anyone who comments about the I-D on the mailing list.

Internet-Drafts include boilerplate text that says:

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

That means that everyone named on an I-D as an author or contributor is
effectively signing that they have complied with or will in a timely manner
comply with the IETF's IPR policy. Some consequences of not complying are
suggested in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6701.txt

At this stage, and or Informational I-Ds, we do not need specific positive
statements of the absence of IPR (we can check that closer to publication as an
RFC if that happens), but we do assume that all authors and contributors are
abiding by the IETF's IPR policy and expect them to disclose IPR if they are
aware of it.

Thanks,
Adrian