Subject: A detail in BCP 79

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:23:53 +0100

BCP 79 (currently RFC 3979) says

>    (C) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
>        Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
>        Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR,
>        a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for
>        publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all
>        persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
>        distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing
>        Technology under one of the licensing options specified in
>        Section 6.5 below unless such a statement has already been
>        submitted.  

Now this makes no sense in the case of a third party disclosure,
since in that case the discloser does not own the IPR and
therefore cannot give such an assurance. Surely the text should say

        ...the IETF
        Executive Director shall request from the owner of such IPR,...

Is that what we meant? If so, can we handle this through the
RFC Editor errata mechanism?

     Brian

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:04:06 +0100

The track is bizarre..... the draft in question is 
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights, and the para has mutated:

-00: (C)  Where the IESG has been informed of claimed intellectual
property rights under (A), the IETF Executive Director shall
request from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that

-03: (C)  Where intellectual property rights have been disclosed as
provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF Executive
Director shall request from the discloser of such rights, a

I think "claimant" was ambiguous, but I can't imagine what we were thinking 
when we changed it to "discloser"......

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:03:14 +0100

Does anybody remember why this change was made? Its impact is that
the secretariat has been taking no action in response to 3rd party
disclosures. Surely this was not the intention?

     Brian

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I think "claimant" was ambiguous, but I can't imagine what we were 
> thinking when we changed it to "discloser"......
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:25:53 +0100

> thinking when we changed it to "discloser"......

Indeed. It's *exactly* in the case of a 3rd party disclosure that
we most need the ExecD to write to the claimant for clarification.
See https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=652
for a current example. (The ExecD has written in this case, at
my request, but a number of other cases have not been clarified.)

Anybody disagree?

     Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:35:34 -0800

Harald and Brian - I may be able to answer this for you ... these are names
of roles in the IP management/ownership process.

Generally speaking, a "Claimant" is one who owns the rights they claim, or
at least that is the allegation. The Discloser may have no formal or
personal interest in the IP and may just be informing the IETF of a
liability that existed against that IP package or its origin may be clouded.
For instance, if a member of a WG were to see a patent or hear of one under
Note Well and wanted to put the IETF IPR Disclosures on notice of its
existence, that person would be a Discloser. The Claimant then is limited to
someone with a claim to prosecute on their or their agents/assignee's
behalf.

Jorge? - any problem with this analysis?

Todd Glassey