On 6/29/16 8:14 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:08, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> On 29 Jun 2016, at 1:22, joel jaeggli wrote: >> >>> On 6/28/16 11:14 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>> On 29 Jun 2016, at 0:59, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/28/16 7:48 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >>>>>> draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15: No Objection >>>>>> >>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut >>>>>> this >>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-deployments/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> COMMENT: >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a 2 day old (at the time of this writing) IPR disclosure. It >>>>>> seems rather unusual, and I am not sure of the intent. >>>>> >>>>> they are third party ipr declarations and they are in fact the product >>>>> of reviewing the document: >>>>> >>>>> from the review of [email protected] Carlos Pignataro. >>>>> >>>>> Major: >>>>> >>>>> 1. I came across two patent applications in which the examiners add >>>>> this >>>>> document as a non-patent citation. The document has no IPR >>>>> disclosures, >>>>> and authors seem to have responded to IPR calls. >>>> >>>> There lies my confusion. Why would a patent application that cites this >>>> document cause an IPR disclosure against this document? Seems backwards >>>> to me. >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#page-9 >>> >>> 6.1.3. IPR of Others >>> >>> If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF >>> Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose >>> because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR >>> is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify >>> the IETF by sending an email message to [email protected]. Such a >>> notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person >>> realizes the connection. >>> >>> >> >> Sorry, my confusion is not the fact this is a 3rd party disclosure. >> It's more that the fact being disclosed seems to be that a third party >> patent application cites this document. Maybe I am misreading >> something, but based strictly on the information in the disclosure, >> that doesn't seem to imply a third party has IPR that may encumber the >> draft; rather it seem to imply that may build on top of this draft. > > grumble. I can't seem to type this morning. > > s/... imply that may build.../... imply that the IPR may build...
It's not our job to judge the validity or applicability of ipr claims on material. You can draw your own conclusions as an individual. I think it's responsible of the person engaging in third party disclosure to have done so. that's about the only conclusion I would draw. >> >> >> That all being said, this disclosure came in after IETF last call. I'd >> be very surprised if the working group was aware of it when they >> progressed the draft. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> I will submit 3rd party disclosures for these now, there may be more: >>>>> http://www.google.com/patents/EP2913979A1#npl-citations >>>>> http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
