Hi Benson,
I would say that 1 to 4 are valid options, but it shall be the WG
deciding the way forward.
Also, as Chairs, we can think of a variety of punitive responses,
speaking in the general case, but these shall only concern individuals.
-m
Le 23/10/2014 20:22, Benson Schliesser a écrit :
Hi, Martin -
Just to be clear, can you elaborate on what you see as the options here?
I could imagine some combination of choices: 1) keeping the status quo,
acknowledging that the new IPR has been disclosed, and continuing to
proceed with the document as-is, 2) changing status to something other
than Proposed Standard, 3) revising the content (e.g. as a new RFC?) to
avoid IPR issues that are objectionable, or 4) evaluating alternatives.
Are you also aware of any options for a punitive response? I'm not sure
whether this would be against the inventors, company that owns the IPR,
employees of that company that should have known about the IPR, etc. I'm
also not sure what this punitive response would actually be. BCP 79
doesn't seem to outline anything in this direction. But it seems clear
to me that the recent trends in late IPR disclosure are a problem for
the IETF.
Thanks for any feedback you can give.
-Benson
Martin Vigoureux <mailto:[email protected]>
October 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM
Working Group,
we've received couple months ago an extremely late IPR disclosure
(much later than what can be expected as per rules in BCP79) against
RFC 7024:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2415/
Please take a careful look at the licensing declaration and let us
know whether this is subject to question RFC 7024 (both in its content
and/or status).
Thank you
M&T
