Subject: update of -technology

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:27:57 -0400 (EDT)

I just submitted rev 10 of -technology

there are changes in three places

1/ based on a suggestion from Harald I added the following to the
heading in sec 6 to deal with the case an overly literal critic
thinking that the individual submitter is the only person that can
file an IPR disclosure

   This document refers to the IETF participant making disclosures,   
   consistent with the general IETF theory that participants in the IETF
   act as individuals. A participant's obligation to make a disclosure
   is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner or the participant's
   employer or sponsor makes an appropriate disclosure in place of the
   participant doing so.

2/ I reworded sec 6.2.1 - I am now convinced that our current
practice does not show that formal IPR disclosures are made before
an ID is published so I reworded this section to give that as the
"must" deadline and modified my earlier  text based on a suggestion 
from John K. to encourage IPR discloures (informal if need be) as 
soon as the IPR gets into serious discussion or it is known that 
the IPR will be, or has been,  included in an ID.

(as an aside, in addition to the observation that the publication
of an ID is the trigger for disclosures is our current running code, it
also may be the right thing -- I can see a IPR holder having a process
in place that automatically reviews all IDs that get published with 
any people working for the IPR holder as authors just by having someone
monitor the ID announcements and check for author's affiliations - but
I expect it is much less reliable, given the nature of involvement in the
IETF, for an IPR holder to have a reliable method to get authors to
have their submissions checked beforehand - having a "must" requirement
that assumes an inherently unreliable process run corectly seems to me
to be not a good thing.)

6.2.1 Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.1
   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an
   Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file.   
   For example, if the Contribution is an update to a Contribution for
   which an IPR disclosure has already been made and the applicability
   of the disclosure is not changed by the new Contribution, then no new
   disclosure is required.  But if the Contribution is a new one, or is
   one that changes an existing Contribution such that the revised      
   Contribution is no longer Covered by the disclosed IPR or would be
   Covered by new or different IPR, then a disclosure must be made.     

   Participants who realize that a Contribution will be or has been
   incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft, 
   or is seriously being discussed in a working group are strongly
   encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure.  That
   disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
   reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually
   posted or ready for posting.

3/ I added the same push to disclose to sec 6.2.2

6.2.2 Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.2
   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.2 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published as an
   Internet Draft or RFC, unless the required disclosure is already on
   file. Participants who realize that the IPR will be or has been
   incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft,
   or is seriously being discussed in a working group are strongly
   encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure.  That
   disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
   reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually
   posted or ready for posting.

Scott

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