Subject: Re: last call -- again

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:00:06 -0400

In message <015201c33a5b$70fe6120$020aff0a@tsg1>, "todd glassey" writes:
>Steve - I want to point out that what your are crafting here DOES form a
>contract with the people that submit their materials under these terms. With
>that said, I do not believe that these are best kept as three separate
>documents, because it will be more difficult to manage the workflows and
>contingency, as well as to demonstrating that anyone could have possibly
>made anything close to a competent Informed Consent decision here.

Our experience with 2026, where it was all in one document, persuaded 
us that separate documents were a better idea.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:18:34 -0700

Steven, the only problem with that is that no possible informed consent can
be gotten from a process that is woven between any number of documents. If
the individual submitter has to follow the convoluted path through the half
dozen document already required, and then the three or four new IPR
documents, there is no possible way that anyone less than a brain surgeon
will be able to navigate this contract.

So how will the IETF address this? here again, I want to reiterate that a
"submitters release" would indeed address these problems.One that say's 'I
have read all the requirements and understand that this filing triggers
"blah blah blah"?, oh and that I have the right to post this too'.

Todd