On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:57, joel jaeggli wrote:
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.
I wasn't trying to judge the applicability so much as the intent, but I
take your point. My real concern at this point is that the working group
has the opportunity to decide how to proceed.
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
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
