Re: IPR Disclosures on draft-ietf-sieve-include and draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message

On 17/12/2011 20:38, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> As you have seen by now, the IETF has received 2 IPR disclosures, one
>> regarding draft-ietf-sieve-convert and the other involving
>> draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1657/
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/
> ...
>> Both of these drafts are already approved and in the RFC Editor queue. Right
>> now, the RFC Editor has been asked to hold off publication for the moment
>> until we decide the next steps. We could treat the IPR disclosures just as
>> we would for any already published RFC (that is, we can simply say that it
>> is out of our hands). However, since publication has not occurred, we can
>> ask the RFC Editor to return the documents to the WG for further review,
> I am, of course, not a lawyer, but as I read the terms, they don't
> affect prospective implementations, and you need no license at all as
> long as you don't want to assert your own patents back.  That's not to
> say that this isn't annoying; it is, and I wish it hadn't happened.
> It's just that I don't see it affecting any implementations of the
> standard, which is what's most important here.
>
> I'll also add that Huawei now has not just policies, but also active
> procedures in place to do our best to make this not happen in future.
> Our IETF participants are frequently reminded about the IETF IPR
> policies, and there are people responsible for tracking things and
> ensuring compliance.
>
> In this case, I think that publishing these documents is the right
> thing to do.  I think a working-group review is sufficient, and unless
> WG participants particularly think we need to reach out to the
> community at large for confirmation, we should just release the RFC Ed
> hold on them after this consultation with the WG.
>
> I'll add that the working group and the ADs need to have participants
> speak up and say whether you think that's acceptable or not.  Silence
> is not sufficient in this case.  Please tell us how you would like
> this handled.
I think we need at least WGLC. I think our responsible AD needs to 
decide whether to do IETF LC or not (I have no strong preference either 
way).

_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve