Subject: [OPSAWG] Process wonkery: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:34:19 -0400

Dear OpsAWG WG,

Be not alarmed.
This email was created to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance with
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"
(http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6702.txt).

The authors of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02 and
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases have asked for a Working Group Last
Call -- we would like to check whether any claims of Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) on the document have not yet been disclosed.

Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02 or
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases?  If so, has this IPR been disclosed
in compliance with IETF IPR rules?
(See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.)

If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR.  We might not be able to advance
this document to the next stage until we have received a reply from
each author and listed contributor.

If you are on the OpsAWG WG email list but are not an author or listed
contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity
for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79.  Please do not reply
unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.

Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.

Thanks,
Warren Kumari
(as OpsAWG WG co-chair)

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:01:59 +0200

> each author and listed contributor.

I am not sure whether this is a reasonable question to ask for use
cases and requirements documents but in order to not complicate the
process, let me declare that I am personally not aware of IPR that
needs to be disclosed.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 11:13:31 +0000

Hi,

I am not aware about any IPR that applies to these two I-Ds. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Warren
> Kumari
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 11:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [OPSAWG] Process wonkery: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-
> ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02
> 
> Dear OpsAWG WG,
> 
> Be not alarmed.
> The authors of draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02 and draft-ietf-
> opsawg-coman-use-cases have asked for a Working Group Last Call -- we
> would like to check whether any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
> on the document have not yet been disclosed.
> 
> draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-02 or draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-
> use-cases?  If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
> rules?
> If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, please
> reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally aware of
> any relevant IPR.  We might not be able to advance this document to the
> next stage until we have received a reply from each author and listed
> contributor.
> 
> contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity for a
> voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79.  Please do not reply unless you want
> to make such a voluntary disclosure.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:39:40 -0400

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> cases and requirements documents

Yeah, I hear you, but I've learnt that it is easier / safer to just
ask for *all* documents. I once had an issue where we adopted a
document, and then, just at WGLC the author suddenly popped up and
said that they had IPR, and that he'd "never heard of this having to
disclose IPR thing". This made for a fun few weeks - now I ask early
and often :-)

It would be unfortunate to adopt a requirements document and then only
later discover that the only realistic way to meet one of the
requirements is to use IPR that is owned by one of the authors.

> but in order to not complicate the

Thank you.
W