Thanks, Martin.
Your response makes sense.
In particular, I agree that focusing on individuals is in-line with the
spirit of the IETF. Unfortunately that might be a structural weakness -
perhaps even an attack vector - in this context. This comment
notwithstanding, it probably isn't appropriate for a WG to explore this
issue in isolation, but rather a topic for broader IETF discussion
including the IESG, IAB, etc.
As for the more concrete options 1 to 4 that I described, my personal
choice would be #1. My rationale has to do with IPR issues that aren't
appropriate for discussion on an IETF list.
Cheers,
-Benson
Martin Vigoureux <mailto:[email protected]>
October 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM
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
Benson Schliesser <mailto:[email protected]>
October 23, 2014 at 2:22 PM
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
