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

On 15/12/2011 21:26, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Folks,
>
> 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.
I just want to point out that you made a typo in the subject line, but 
the above text is correct. An IPR declaration was filed on 
draft-ietf-sieve-convert and not draft-ietf-sieve-include.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1657/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/
>
>
> Unfortunately, we have been told that Qian Sun, one of the co-authors 
> of the document, is the author of the patent in question, filed back 
> in 2008, and that he failed to disclose this at the time. I think this 
> was pretty clearly a violation of RFC 3979, and the IESG will take up 
> the question of what, if any, appropriate measures need to be taken 
> because of that. Qian Sun is apparently no longer an active IETF 
> participant, and his co-workers who are active IETF participants asked 
> their company to disclose against the two documents as soon as they 
> discovered what had happened. That's where were are now.
>
> However, I did want to bring this to the attention of the working 
> group and ask about the following:
>
> 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, which as far as I can tell the 
> RFC Editor always agrees to do. So, I ask that you all review the 
> disclosures and ask the following question to the group:
>
> After having reviewed the disclosures, does anyone in the WG wish to 
> discuss the impact of these disclosures on the decision to publish 
> these documents as they are? If so, I will likely ask the chairs to 
> run a WGLC on the documents, and then I will run a new IETF Last Call 
> with a pointer to the IPR disclosures. On the other hand, if there is 
> *strong* consensus now on the list that it is fine go forward as-is, I 
> will consider the matter settled and tell the RFC Editor to continue 
> processing.
>
> Please let us know what you think.
>
> pr
>

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