Subject: [sidr] confirmation requested of IPR disclosure

From: "Murphy, Sandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:26:06 +0000

The shepherding writeup requires answers from each and every draft author confirming that any IPR has been disclosed.  The request for publication will not be made until the answers are received.

     (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
     disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
     and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Please do reply to this message as soon as possible

--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:51:39 -0400

At Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:26:06 +0000, Sandy Murphy wrote:
> 
> The shepherding writeup requires answers from each and every draft
> author confirming that any IPR has been disclosed.  The request for
> publication will not be made until the answers are received.
> 

Good freaking gods.  Public oaths required before RFC publication now?
Somebody please lock up the lawyers.

To the best of my knowledge, I hold no IPR in need of disclosure with
respect to in any contribution I might have made to this I-D.

If any such IPR were to exist, which I doubt, the contract under which
I did this work would require me to make said hypothetical IPR freely
available under BSD license.

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:00:38 -0400

> Somebody please lock up the lawyers.

it's good times, right?

I think this comes from the friendly iesg-ish folk wanting to avoid
IPR stuff at the 11:59 mark of a review/publication :(

> available under BSD license.

thanks!

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:36:32 +0200

>      and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

i have no idea what other authors have done.  i am unaware of any ipr in
this draft.

randy

---

From: "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:19:12 +0000

I am unaware of any ipr in this draft.

Regards,
Keyur

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:13:37 +0100

> IPR stuff at the 11:59 mark of a review/publication :(
Or at 13:01, which is problematic for all involved.

There have been an increasing number of late IPR filing across the IETF
and it's in everyone's interests that this is avoided.

For most people the answer is a straight forward "I am unaware..."
but across the area as a whole there are occasional responses that
are of the form "ah, sorry, need to talk to our legal department....".

Stewart