Dear all, I'd like to follow up on the previous WGLC announcement regarding draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs. As a reminder, the previous email requested your input on whether the disclosed IPR impacts your support for publication of this document.
To facilitate the next steps in this process, I kindly request your *response by February 11th (2 weeks from now)*. Feel free to only reply to the WG chairs. Please indicate whether: * (a) You require additional time to form an opinion. * (b) You have an opinion (please share it). * (c) You do not have an opinion. * (d) You have an alternative proposal for a path forward. Your timely response will be greatly appreciated and will assist us in moving forward. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -- Ivaylo On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:15 AM Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > In light of https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6609/, please answer the > following question in relation to draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs [0]. > > Does this IPR disclosure impact your support for publication of this > document? > > [0]: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-07 > > Before answering the question above, please read through the following > quote [1] from another working group that you might find helpful in > relation to the process regarding Intelectual property Rights at the IETF. > > [1]: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/-8jgb0jpEOpPjfJyfkIcVcpx5F0/ > > Note that, in the IETF, patent claims are usually called "IPR" > ("Intellectual Property Rights"), independent of whether there are any > actual rights or what "IPR" may apply beyond patent claims (for > instance, there are usually copright claims or similar droit > d'auteur/Urheberrecht on the text of a draft). > > So, focusing on patent claims, before answering the WGLC, PLEASE > REVIEW the IETF procedures for dealing with such claims, as recorded > in BCP 79 (currently RFC 8179 [2]). > > [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179 > > In general, in the IETF it is up to a WG to consider the impact of > patent claims on a technology and to decide whether a potentially > encumbered technology should be agreed on or whether alternative > technologies should be pursued. > (IESG members may be interested in a WG's record of making this > decision, but the rules notably do not put them in a position to > second-guess that decision. > Neither are the WG chairs, which however do need to gauge the WG > consensus on a particular decision.) > > Please note that one weird aspect of the patent law that governs > several of the jurisdictions under which members of the WG operate is > that plausibly having knowledge about a patent claim can create > additional liability for those WG members (as individuals or for their > companies). > We therefore generally DO NOT discuss details of patent claims on WG > mailing lists. > > However, WG members will need to factor in information about patent > claims when making the decision whether to be in favor of a document > advancing after a WG call. > They may need to obtain some of the necessary input from separate > sources, such as corporate lawyers, which may require additional time > -- <redacted due to irrelevance>. > Your lawyers may be interested in whether the patent claims actually > "read" on the specification under consideration (i.e., claim patent > rights on some aspect of it) and whether that specific claim is > sufficiently likely to be enforceable to be of interest for the > decision of the organization. > > Note that this is a legal decision, and as such not subject to a logic > that engineers might understand. > There is therefore little reason to fall into armchair lawyering on > the mailing list, and, as I mentioned, that would likely be > detrimental for some WG members (having caused WG members to > unsubscribe and cease their activities in a WG before). > Also, you definitely do not want to appear to give legal advice. > > Thank you > -- > Ivaylo on behave of the COSE chairs > > P.S: This email was drafted after a discussion with my co-chair and > feedback on > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/?gbt=1&index=GlwPylkPBsHgffuJXEr-_ZhlxFg > . > >
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
