Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-techn ology-rights-09.txt

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:38:13 -0400 (EDT)

I think that is less reliable - and more prone to people forgetting
becaue the ID may come out a long time after they realize that it
will be put in a ID and they may forget by the time the ID comes out

in addition, your working puts a requirement on that may
not be able to be met - what if the person does not realize that
his contrinution was added to teh ID - your language puts a requirent
to disclose even if the person does not know - that does not sound like a
good ide 

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Powers Chuck-rxcp20 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:11:20 -0700

Scott,

   I have one suggestion regarding the revised language in Section 6.2.1 Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.1.

   The current text states: "...at least as soon as reasonably possible after the Contributor realizes the Contribution will be incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft...".

   From an implementation standpoint, the term "realizes the Contribution will be" seems a bit vague, leaving the timing open to a lot more interpretation than I believe is intended. This could be helpful or harmful, depending upon one's point of view.

   I recommend modifying the wording to something like: "...at least as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution _is incorporated_ into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft...". IMO, this would provide a more distinct "line in the sand" indicating when a disclosure must be made, leaving less room for gamesmanship (or confusion).

regards,

Chuck

Chuck Powers, Corporate Standards Offices

phone: 512-895-4594
mobile: 512-576-1698
2-way Pager: 1-800-759-8352 Pager Pin #: 119-0200

[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:45:15 -0700

Chuck Powers wrote:
>    I recommend modifying the wording to something like: 
> "...at least as soon as reasonably possible after the 
> Contribution _is incorporated_ into a submission to be 
> published as an Internet Draft...". IMO, this would provide a 
> more distinct "line in the sand" indicating when a disclosure 
> must be made, leaving less room for gamesmanship (or confusion).

Lawyers LOVE the word "reasonable."  It guarantees that at least two
lawyers will have full employment for the duration of the litigation.
Line in the *shifting* sand, you mean.

/Larry

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:55:29 -0700

next concern with v9 -

IS:
   c. "IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as an Internet-Draft or RFC (except
      for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any statement
      made within the context of an IETF Standards Process. Such
      statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as
      written and electronic communications made at any time or place,
      which are addressed to:
      o  the IETF plenary session,
      o  any IETF working group or portion thereof,
      o  the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
      o  the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
      o  any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any
         working group or design team list, or any other list
         functioning under IETF auspices,
      o  the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function (except for RFC
         Editor Contributions described below).

      Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
      function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
      activity, group or function, are not Contributions in the context
      of this document.

CHANGE to:

   c. "IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF submitted for
      publication, except for RFC Editor Contributions described
      below, and any statement  made within the context of an IETF
      Standards Process. Such statements include oral statements
      in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic
      communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to

---SNIP---

The intent is to cover all submissions and remove the ambiguity possibly
attributable by limiting this to I-D and RFC communications.

And by the way, how is all the specific material pertinent to any initiative
collected? If you need a list of it, look at the example at the top of the
page. This last block of text implies that there is some formal collection
of all the specific emails on a WG list particular to a standards process,
effort, or initiative and that this is amassed as part of the process, i.e.
that some formal portfolio of IP is produced... So if I was to request a
copy of the IP package for say "Internet Standard #5" what would I get?

My bet at this point is a bunch of blank, empty stares in return...  and
some annoyed grumblings from the top of the ladder for getting caught here
again.

But lets move on

----

      Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
      function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
      activity, group or function, are not Contributions in the context
      of this document.

OK - but this is a small world, and the issue there is also in binding the
players so that they behave ethically too in addition to the organization.
It is not enough to just say that the organization must play fair. it also
needs to be cut in stone that the participants in the process must also play
fair, so I propose that this section be amended to something like:

      Participants in the IETF's processes have a responsibility to
     make any IP issues known to IETF WG's for which they are
     aware of IETF initiatives underway in.

      In these cases statements made outside of an IP issues
      pertinent to an IETF initiative that are made outside the
      IETF session, mailing list or other function, must also be
      disclosed to the IETF to avoid damaging the other IETF
      participants investing financial and worker resources in
      developing that initiative.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-09.txt