|
|
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
Hi Stephan, thanks for the feedback and sorry about the slow reply. On 4/30/12 11:19 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > Hi, > Here are a few comments to this draft. > Stephan > > (1) Section 3.1, final paragraph. An IETF disclosure has to be made > against a Contribution. In the case described in this paragraph, the > Contribution may not have been made at the time of the Disclosure request, > and, therefore, it would be impossible to make a Disclosure. For example, > if someone wants to discuss a technology verbally, you cannot make an IPR > disclosure before the words have been uttered. I would remove this > paragraph. Alternatively, limit it to "materials you plan to make > available at the meeting" in the sprit it of section 4.1. I see your point: one can't realistically be expected to file a disclosure before making a Contribution. Tim and I will discuss together how we'd like to make this clearer. One possibility is to use a less formal method, e.g., providing information about known IPR in the materials to be presented or posting to the relevant discussion list ahead of time (rather than filing a formal disclosure). > (2) Section 3.2, "silence may be interpreted as a weak "No".". This > statement is IMO not supported by the IETF patent policy, and should > therefore be removed. Generally speaking, any additional burden to > non-Contributors beyond making them aware of the voluntary disclosure > opportunity IMP constitutes a policy change and must be avoided. I think you're right that absence of evidence can't be interpreted as evidence of absence. If Tim agrees, we'll stike that sentence. > (3) Section 3.3. I would replace "author" with "authors and other > Contributors". Or "known Contributors", "prominent Contributors", or > something like this. It is entirely possible, and in fact not uncommon, > that non-author Contributors influence the technology choices of I-Ds. > One possible metric for identifying some of these Contributors would be a > review of the Acknowledgement section many I-Ds include. I see this > mentioned in section 3.4; I would shift (or duplicate?) the burden of > double-checking with Contributors to the WG chairs as WGLC. Your suggestion of "authors and other Contributors" seems right. > (4) Section 4.2. Suggest to include Contributors in the spirit of comment > (3) above. Agreed. > (5) Section A.1. The email has a logical structure, but sometimes a > logical structure may not have the best effect. As written, people will > probably not read it in its entirety, but will give up once its clear that > it includes legalese. Suggest to move the final paragraph "As FOO WG > chairs" to the top, and put the formal justification stuff at the end. > > (6) Section A.2: I would substitute "Dear FOO WG" with "Dear FOO WG and > especially authors and Contributors:" > > (7) Section A.2, third paragraph, sentence "We will not be able to advance > this document to the next stage until we have received a reply from each > author and listed contributor." If this sentence starts appearing with > some consistency in IETF WGs, then we have a de-facto policy change > (requiring affirmative negative declarations). Suggest to soften the > language: "we may not be able to advance" or "it does not appear to be > sensible to us to advance" > > (8) Section A.2, fourth paragraph: I would express this along the > following: "you are reminded of your opportunity for a voluntary IPR > disclosure under BCP79 section xxx. Unless you want to make such a > voluntary disclosure, please do not reply." > > (9) Section A.3, see previous comments (7) and (8). > > (10) Section A.4, see previous comment (7) > > (11) Section A.5, see previous comment (7) Thanks for those suggestions. We'll look at those sample messages again, but on a first look I think all your points are spot-on. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/