Dear all, Based on the recent email from Antoine Delignat-Lavaud [1] and feedback received directly by the chairs, we do not see reasons to delay a request for publications for draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs. I will update the shepherd write-up and request publication.
Thank you, Ivaylo [1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/uaXAo7zsnFg1XHOq1xoIKUR6ah8/ On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:30 PM Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
