I've been thinking this over and spoken to some people who understand this position better than I, and my position has shifted as I don't feel that an IPR statement _changes_ the content of the ID, although it _may_ affect the content of other drafts and IDs when the IPR is publically visible. At some stage there may be a discussion of like documents but that shouldn't, in my opinion, hinder the review of draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate and I feel it is within charter as so I support its adoption as a WG item and am willing to review even though the discussion and WG status request was hijacked and the due date for the topic has expired.
That said, can I ask - for future use and reference - the WG-chairs to seek a WG consensus on how it deals with IPR? Cheers Terry On 31/10/09 1:36 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: > General comment: > The US Patent office procedures are such that there is a delay between > filing and public disclosure of applications. That may be applicable here. > > the IETF procedures specifically ask folks to tell us about such patent > applications, if they think they apply. However, we understand that we > can not get details at that point. > > If we treat such disclosure as a priori blocked of WG consideration of a > document, we invite denial of service attacks on our work. If this > document were being last called, then the question would be > significantly more complicated. But we are only at WG adoption, as a > starting point for work on a topic. > > (This is separate from the additional, relevant, question that Robert asks.) > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > Robert Loomans wrote: >> Terry Manderson wrote: >>> I feel unable to say either way at present. >>> >> ... >>> A direct link to the Patent Application would be appreciated! >> >> Ditto. I'm reluctant to take any stance on this draft without more >> information on what the patent claims. >> >> Additionally, I'd like to see a clear statement as to what this draft >> says for which the existing draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation is insufficient. >> >> Rob >> > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
