Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-01.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:42:01 +0000

Thnaks for drafting this. I need to read it closely, but here are a couple
of points prompted by the summary of changes.

> Inventor names -- added words requiring that inventors be listed
>       along with patent numbers.

If we are adding inventor names, I think we should also add the
identity of the assignee. This may be implied by the identity of the
disclosing party, but it seems that it should be explicit.

>       However, if an oral contribution is made and it is not followed by
>       a written contribution, then the oral discloser must either make a
>       concurrent oral IPR disclosure or file a formal written
>       disclosure.

Does a transcript or paraphrase in the meeting minutes and/or jabber
log count as a written contribution?

    Brian

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:44:39 +0000

> disclosing party, but it seems that it should be explicit.

good idea

> log count as a written contribution?

humm - the contributor did not put the contribution into writing but 
it is written none the less - a good question, suggestions?

Scott

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

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:53:02 +0000

>it is written none the less - a good question, suggestions?

IMHO no.  That's a written contribution from the note taker, and not an
intentional action on the part of the original person.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:58:23 +0000

> intentional action on the part of the original person.

That would be a logical interpretation, but it should be explicit
in the BCP to avoid creating an undefined case.

   Brian

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:15:31 -0800

> intentional action on the part of the original person.
So then the Note Taker is not creating an IP in the form of the 
transcribed notes? WRONG...

The NOTES themselves are a new IP object with its own control (under 
Note Well)...

Todd

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 08:54:37 -0800

>>>       along with patent numbers.
Will you include IPT references in it?
>> disclosing party, but it seems that it should be explicit.
Only if you intend to

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:19:54 -0500

> disclosing party, but it seems that it should be explicit.

Assignee can change.  Do we want to impose a requirement for subsequent statements when the assignee changes?

Russ

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:40:50 -0800

> Assignee can change.  Do we want to impose a requirement for subsequent statements when the assignee changes?
This would cause a serious issue since it would have to be maintained.

How would that work - would the Patent Assignee need to update this or 
would the filer update this process?

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:01:39 +0000

> Assignee can change.  Do we want to impose a requirement for subsequent statements when the assignee changes?

Technically, I suppose the answer is yes, but since the impact
on the IETF itself comes during the discussion and approval process,
I think the assignee at the time of disclosure is the most important
information.

The draft does say that licensing commitments made in the disclosure
are irrevocable even if the patent is transferred. IANAL, so I don't know
if the word "assign" should also be mentioned there.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:42:12 +0000

Hi,

I've gone through the text in detail and have two queries in addition
to my earlier comments, then some nits.

The first query: We know that in practice, many disclosures are made
by corporate IPR departments, and that in fact individual employees
are often not allowed to make disclosures or licensing commitments.
How can we express this in the document? One possibility is to add
something in "5.3. How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made?" like this:

 It is acceptable for a disclosure to be made on behalf of a
 Contributor by an authorised official of the Contributor's employer.

The second query: IANAL, so I may easily have missed any unintended
changes compared to RFC 3979. Jorge is a lawyer, but I'm wondering
whether a second legal eye should look over the draft for
unintentional changes.

Nits:

> 9. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents
> 
> 
>    RFC 2026 Section 4.1.2 states:

This is now replaced by similar wording in section 2.2 of RFC 6410:

 (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
     requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
     set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
     separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

In "5.1.1. A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution"
there is the phrase

>  A. Any Contributor...  must make a disclosure in accordance with this
>  Section 6.

Shouldn't that be Section 5? This has been cut and pasted from RFC 3979
where the section numbering was different.

Oh - you have a bunch of erroneous references to section 6 in
sections 3 and 4 too.

Same problem in 5.1.3, referring to non-existent 6.6.

Shame you're not using xml2rfc, where <xref/> sorts this out for you.

    Brian