Subject: RE: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t echn ology-rights-09.txt

From: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:39:11 -0400

John:

Scott Bradner's text also has the following words, though it is further down in a separate paragraph:

   "Participants who realize that a Contribution will be incorporated
   into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft are also
   encouraged to do so as soon as reasonably possible."

Would this work?

Hung Ling

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:38 AM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of
draft-ietf-ipr-t echn ology-rights-09.txt

Scott,

For whatever my opinion is worth in this, I would prefer to 
insist that we have, and require, _some_ disclosure --if 
necessary and appropriate, by Contributing individuals at the 
"reasonably and personally known level" _before_ a document is 
posted/published.  That is a clear demarcation point at which 
compliance, or the lack thereof, is fairly clear.  "...as soon 
as reasonably possible after..." is the right concept, IMO, for 
a relatively full disclosure with licensing statements, etc. 
But, if the author of a document knows that something in that 
document is encumbered, it is reasonable and appropriate for us 
to insist on getting a disclosure at, at least, a "I think my 
organization may have an IPR issue with some of the suggestions 
this document makes".

And, going back to the themes of the Note Well, I think that, 
given contributor knowledge, that level of disclosure is 
desirable at the time of the first mailing list posting or talk 
in front of a WG.

Coming back to my comments about balancing objectives and 
reality, I think we need to be reasonable and realistic here. 
But I don't think that, to be reasonable, we need to set 
ourselves up for a situation in which someone pushes an 
encumbrance-laden agenda while delaying publishing an identified 
type of document so as to avoid disclosing,  and then abuses "as 
soon as reasonably possible" to stretch things out even a bit 
longer.

      john

--On Tuesday, 17 June, 2003 00:10 -0400 Scott Bradner 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> how about
>
> 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 incorporated    into a submission to be
> published as an Internet Draft unless the    required
>...

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

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