Subject: RE: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:09:52 -0400

In an attempt to make the language of this document consistent
with that of Scott Bradner's Rights in Technology document, I would
suggest that the term "claim" (which was thought in the Rights
in Technology discussion to be confusing) be replaced with the term
"IPR disclosure".  The reason the word "claim" is confusing is because it
can apply both to an IPR disclosure made within the IETF process AND
to a claim of a patent -- two very different concepts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 5:13 AM
To: Pekka Savola; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

Hi Pekka!

I like this thinking - and once we get the IPR claims into a database so 
that it's mechanical to generate "the list of all IPR claims known to 
pertain to this document set", it shouldn't add that much overhead either.

(I wouldn't want to be responsible for doing it today....)

One comment:

> http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

The document says:

   If claims arrive during or after the last call period, prior to the
   approval of the document, a new last call should be announced.

some issues with this one:

- if the new last call resets the clock, it makes the process take longer 
(especially for individuals, which get 4-week Last Calls)
- if claims arrive after Last Call expiry, but before IESG approval, they 
won't get noticed by the community

I suggest instead:

  If claims are filed after the beginning of the Last Call, but before
  IESG disposition of the document, and less than four weeks after the
  end of the Last Call, the filing of the claim is announced
  using the same method as for the Last Call.

  If claims are filed more than four weeks after the end of the Last Call,
  but the IESG has not yet made final disposition of the document, a new
  Last Call MUST be made before the IESG makes its final disposition.

(the "four weeks" is a tunable parameter - I just picked a value)

In the case I hope to be normal some time in the future (optimist!), the 
first paragraph should be enough to inform the community and the IESG about 
the IPR issues.

In the case of documents returned to the WG by the IESG for working out 
issues found in Last Call or IESG review, this often takes quite a bit of 
time, so reissuing the Last Call when it comes around again is a reasonable 
way to notify the community of changed IPR filings. Adds another 2 or 4 
weeks to the clock, but if we're more than 4 weeks delayed already, this 
might not be too critical.

Thoughts?

                         Harald

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:22:52 +0300 (EEST)

> to a claim of a patent -- two very different concepts.

Looking at the document, does "IPR disclosure" include e.g. someone sayng 
"we have IPR on this" or does it only activate when the disclosure has 
been made formally to the repository?

I also want to refer to IPR "claims" which are publically known but not 
yet filed in the repository.

Is the term OK for that?

Thanks.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings