Internet DRAFT - draft-polk-ipr-disclosure
draft-polk-ipr-disclosure
Network Working Group T. Polk
Internet-Draft National Institute of Standards
Intended status: Informational and Technology
Expires: December 23, 2012 P. Saint-Andre
Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 21, 2012
Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure
Rules
draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-05
Abstract
The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in
documents produced within the IETF stream is essential to the
accurate development of community consensus. However, this process
is not always followed by IETF participants. Regardless of the cause
or motivation, noncompliance with IPR disclosure rules can delay or
even derail completion of IETF specifications. This document
describes some strategies for promoting compliance with the IPR
disclosure rules. These strategies are primarily intended for use by
area directors, working group chairs, and working group secretaries.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Strategies for Working Group Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 5
3.2. Requesting WG Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Requesting WG Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 8
4.2. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. A Note About Preliminary Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Sample Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.1. General WG Reminder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2. Reminder to Meeting Presenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.3. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual
Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.4. Reminder before Working Group Last Call . . . . . . . . . 13
A.5. Reminder to Authors and Listed Contributors of a
Working Group Document before IETF Last Call . . . . . . . 14
A.6. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before
IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
1. Introduction
The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in
documents produced within the IETF stream [RFC5741] is essential to
the efficient and accurate development of community consensus. In
particular, ensuring that IETF working groups and participants have
as much information as possible regarding IPR constraints, as early
as possible in the process, increases the likelihood that the
community can develop an informed consensus regarding technical
proposals. Statements to that effect appear in both the second and
third revisions of the Internet Standards Process ([RFC1602], Section
5.5, Clause (B) and [RFC2026], Section 10.4, Clause (B)).
However, sometimes IPR disclosures do not occur at the earliest
possible stage in the IETF process. There are many reasons why an
individual might not disclose IPR early in the process: for example,
through a simple oversight, to introduce delay, or to subvert the
emergence of consensus.
Regardless of the cause or motivation, noncompliance with IPR
disclosure rules can delay or even derail completion of IETF
specifications. Disclosure of IPR after significant decisions, such
as Working Group Last Call (WGLC), might lead to reconsideration of
those actions. As one example, a working group (WG) might change
course and use a previously rejected technical proposal with less
onerous licensing requirements. Such "course corrections" produce
unnecessary delays in the standardization process.
This document suggests some strategies for promoting compliance with
the IETF's IPR disclosure rules and thereby avoiding such delays.
These strategies are primarily intended for use by area directors
(ADs), WG chairs, and WG secretaries.
These strategies are focused on promoting early disclosure by
document authors, since late disclosure involving authors has
historically caused significant delays in the standardization
process. Many of these strategies also promote early disclosure by
other IETF contributors.
Naturally, even if ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries do not apply
the strategies described in this document, IETF contributors are
still bound by the rules defined in BCP 79 (see [RFC3979] and
[RFC4879]). This document does not modify those rules, nor does it
normatively extend those rules; it merely provides suggestions
intended to aid ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries.
By intent, this document does not claim to define best current
practices; instead, it suggests strategies that ADs, WG chairs, and
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
WG secretaries might find useful. With sufficient use and
appropriate modification to incorporate the lessons of experience,
these strategies might someday form the basis for documentation of
best current practices.
This document does not consider the parallel, but important, issue of
potential actions that can be taken by the IETF itself for lack of
conformance with the IETF's IPR policy. That topic is discussed in
[Sanctions].
At the time of this writing, the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
follows the same IPR disclosure rules as the IETF (see
<http://irtf.org/ipr>); therefore, the stategies described here might
also be appropriate for use by IRTF Research Group chairs.
1.1. Terminology
This document relies on the definitions provided in Section 1 of
[RFC3979].
The term "formal disclosure" refers to an IPR disclosure statement
that has been officially submitted by using the IPR disclosure tools
currently available at <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure> or
by sending a message to <mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org>. The term
"informal disclosure" refers to a statement that is provided in a
less official manner, such as orally during a presentation, in
writing within presentation materials, or posted via email to the
relevant discussion list before a presentation.
Since this document is purely informational, by intent it does not
use the conformance language described in [RFC2119].
2. Background
The responsibilities of IETF contributors regarding IPR disclosure
are documented in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879]. These documents do not
assign any further responsibilities to ADs, WG chairs, and WG
secretaries, other than those imposed by their roles as contributors
or participants. However, late disclosure of IPR has a direct impact
on the effectiveness of working groups, WG chairs, and ADs.
According to [RFC2418], WG chairs are responsible for "making forward
progress through a fair and open process" and ADs are responsible for
"ensuring that working groups in their area produce ... timely
output"; in addition, because WG chairs can appoint one or more WG
secretaries to help them with the day-to-day business of running the
working group (see [RFC2418]), some of the actions suggested in this
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
document might fall to WG secretaries.
IPR disclosure at the earliest possible time is an essential feature
of a "fair and open process", and late disclosure can impede timely
output since it can cause the WG to revisit previous decisions,
needlessly revise technical specifications, and face the prospect of
appeals. To better fulfill their responsibilities in the IETF
standards process, ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries might wish to
adopt strategies to encourage early disclosure consistent with the
responsibilities established in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879], such as the
strategies described in this document.
3. Strategies for Working Group Documents
Building upon the framework provided in [RFC3669], this section
identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure within the
document lifecycle for IETF working group documents. These
opportunities are typically encountered during initial public
discussion, working group adoption, Working Group Last Call (WGLC),
and IETF Last Call. WG chairs might also want to make WG
participants aware of the importance of IPR disclosure more
generally, as exemplified by the sample message provided under
Appendix A.1.
The strategies described in this section are primarily implemented by
WG chairs. (The exceptions are strategies for IETF Last Call, which
would be implemented by ADs.) In cases where the WG secretary
creates meeting agendas or initiates consensus calls, the secretary
might also implement these strategies.
3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting
The first opportunity to encourage early IPR disclosure might occur
even before a technical proposal becomes a working group document.
When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a
personal draft in hopes of future adoption by a working group, one
common strategy is to request a slot on the agenda at an upcoming
face-to-face meeting. Before the community commits resources to
reviewing and considering the draft, it is very reasonable for the WG
chairs to confirm (often via email) that all IPR disclosures have
been submitted. The chairs ought to request confirmation from each
of the authors and listed contributors, especially if those
individuals are associated with multiple organizations.
If the necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have
a choice: deny the agenda slot unless formal IPR disclosure
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
statements are submitted, or insist on informal disclosure. One
factor in this decision could be the number of revisions that have
occurred: the chairs might wish to permit presentation of a -00 draft
with informal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through
multiple revision cycles. If informal disclosure is allowed, the
chairs ought to make sure that the disclosure is documented in the
minutes, and ought to encourage submission of formal disclosure
statements after the meeting.
In some cases, an IETF participant has not yet submitted an Internet-
Draft but might still request a slot on the agenda to discuss a
proposal for a new draft, or a new feature for an existing working
group document. Here again, it is very reasonable for the WG chairs
to confirm, before approving the agenda slot, that all IPR claims
have been disclosed (likely in an informal manner as described above,
since the participant has not yet made a Contribution as defined by
the Internet Standards Process [RFC3979]).
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.2.
3.2. Requesting WG Adoption
When a technical proposal is considered for adoption by a working
group, the chairs have an opportunity to confirm (or reconfirm) IPR
compliance with authors and listed contributors. In addition, the
chairs might wish to explicitly ask the WG participants if anyone is
aware of IPR that is associated with the proposal.
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.3.
3.3. Requesting WG Last Call
Working Group Last Call is a particularly significant milestone for a
working group document, measuring consensus within the working group
one final time. If IPR disclosure statements have not been
submitted, the judgement of consensus by the chairs would be less
than reliable because it would be based on incomplete assumptions.
Even if procedures such as those described above have been
implemented to promote IPR disclosure during initial public
discussion and adoption, features might have evolved in a way that
introduces new IPR concerns. In addition, new participants with
knowledge of IPR claims might have become active in the working
group. Therefore the WG chairs might wish to reconfirm with each of
the authors and listed contributors that appropriate IPR disclosure
statements have been filed, even if they all work for the same
organization. The chairs might also wish to include a reminder about
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
the importance of IPR disclosures in any WGLC message communicated to
the working group. (Note: If IPR disclosure statements have been
filed, the chairs might wish to include a link in the WGLC message to
ensure that the consensus call reflects this information.)
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.4.
3.4. AD Review
After successfully completing WGLC, a working group document is
forwarded to the appropriate Area Director for AD review, with a
request that the AD process the document for publication as an RFC.
Such a publication request is accompanied by a Document Shepherd
Write-up as required by [RFC4858] using the template found at
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html>. At the time of
this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to answer the
following question:
(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.
Shepherds ought to be asking authors that question directly.
Additionally, the AD can ask the WG chairs whether they took explicit
action to promote disclosure of IPR.
If the answer to the write-up question is not favorable, or if the
chairs did not take any of the actions listed above, the AD might
choose to contact the authors and listed contributors to confirm that
the appropriate IPR disclosure statements have been filed before
advancing the document through the publication process.
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.5.
3.5. IETF Last Call
IETF Last Call is the mechanism used by the the AD and the IESG as a
whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It is critical that the
community have easy access to all related IPR statements when
considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools automatically
include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly linked to the draft
when the default IETF Last Call message is generated. If the AD
edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure statements ought to
be preserved.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions
This section identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure
within the IETF document lifecycle for documents that are processed
outside the context of a working group (so-called "individual
submissions"). In general, these opportunities are encountered
during initial public discussion, area director review, and IETF Last
Call.
4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting
When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a
personal draft not intended for a working group, it is still common
to request a slot on the agenda at an upcoming face-to-face meeting.
These requests might be made to related working groups or area
meetings, or even during plenary time. Before the community commits
resources to reviewing and considering the draft, it is very
reasonable for the chairs of that meeting (WG chair, AD, IESG chair,
or IAB chair) to confirm that all IPR disclosures have been
submitted.
The meeting chairs ought to request confirmation from each of the
authors and listed contributors, especially if those individuals are
associated with multiple organizations. Where the presentation
covers a concept that has not yet been documented as an Internet-
Draft, the chairs ought to at least request informal disclosure from
the authors and listed contributors, as described above.
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.2.
4.2. AD Review
When considering the possibility of sponsoring an individual
submission, an AD ought to confirm that all IPR disclosures have been
submitted. The AD ought to require confirmation from each of the
authors and listed contributors, even if those individuals are
associated with the same organization. As with WG documents, a
Document Shepherd Write-up is also required for AD sponsored
documents, following the template at
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/individual-doc-writeup.html>. At
the time of this writing, the template asks the document shepherd to
answer the following question:
(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.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
A sample message of the kind that might be sent at this stage is
provided under Appendix A.6.
4.3. IETF Last Call
As with working group documents, IETF Last Call is the mechanism used
by the AD and the IESG as a whole to gauge IETF-wide consensus. It
is critical that the community have easy access to all related IPR
statements when considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools
automatically include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly
linked to the draft when the default IETF Last Call message is
generated. If the AD edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure
statements ought to be preserved.
5. A Note About Preliminary Disclosures
Early disclosures are not necessarily complete disclosures. Indeed,
[RFC3979] can be read as encouraging "preliminary disclosure" (e.g.,
when a new patent application is made), yet a preliminary disclosure
might not be updated as new information becomes available later in
the standardization process (e.g., when a patent is actually
granted). To help prevent early IPR disclosures from becoming stale
or incomplete, at important junctures in the standardization process
(e.g., at Working Group adoption, before Working Group Last Call, and
before IETF Last Call) WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to request
that the Executive Director of the IETF contact those who submitted
early IPR disclosures about updating their disclosures.
6. Conclusions
WG chairs and ADs are not expected to enforce IPR disclosure rules,
and this document does suggest that they take on such a role.
However, lack of compliance with IPR disclosure policies can have a
significant impact on the Internet Standards Process. To support the
efficient development of IETF standards and avoid unnecessary delays,
WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to look for opportunities to promote
awareness and compliance with the IETF's IPR policies. The
strategies in this document promote compliance by raising the
question of IPR disclosure at critical junctures in the
standardization process.
7. Security Considerations
This document suggests strategies for promoting compliance with IPR
disclosure rules during the IETF standards process. These procedures
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
do not have a direct impact on the security of the Internet.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.
[RFC4879] Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC1602] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process
-- Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC3669] Brim, S., "Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual
Property Issues", RFC 3669, February 2004.
[RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin,
"Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to
Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007.
[RFC5741] Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers,
and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.
[Sanctions]
Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy",
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-06 (work in progress),
June 2012.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
Appendix A. Sample Messages
This section provides sample messages of the kind that ADs, WG
chairs, and WG secretaries can send to meeting presenters, document
authors, document editors, listed contributors, and working groups
during various stages of the Internet Standards Process. The
messages use a hypothetical working group called the "FOO WG",
hypothetical WG chairs named "Alice" and "Bob", a hypothetical author
named "Nigel Throckmorton", a hypothetical AD named "Christopher",
and hypothetical documents about a hypothetical technology called
"wiffle"; any resemblance to actual working groups, WG chairs, ADs,
or documents is strictly coincidental. The last two messages might
be appropriate for sending to individuals who have requested a slot
on the agenda during an IETF meeting or who have requested AD
sponsorship of an individual submission.
A.1. General WG Reminder
Subject: Reminder about IETF IPR Policy
Dear FOO WG:
As FOO WG chairs, we would like to minimize or hopefully even
eliminate late disclosures relating to documents under consideration
within the FOO WG. Therefore you might see us send "reminder"
messages in the future to authors or to the FOO WG email list as a
whole, asking people whether they know of Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) relating to specific documents. In order to comply with
IETF processes and avoid unnecessary delays, document authors and
contributors to our discussions in the FOO WG are asked to take pay
careful attention to these messages and to reply in a timely fashion.
Please note that these messages are only reminders of existing IETF
policy, and we are all bound by that policy even in the absence of
such reminder messages. Everyone who participates in the Internet
Standards Process (whether by posting to IETF mailing lists,
authoring documents, attending IETF meetings, or in other ways) needs
to be aware of the IETF rules with regard to IPR. These rules are
described in BCP79 and can be referenced through
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html>. In addition, online tools for
filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. Finally, existing
disclosures can be searched online at
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/>.
Also note that these are personal requirements applying to all IETF
participants as individuals, and that these requirements also apply
to all participants in the FOO WG.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
Thanks,
Alice and Bob
(as FOO WG co-chairs)
A.2. Reminder to Meeting Presenter
Subject: IPR about draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar
Dear Nigel,
I have received your request to give a talk about
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar at the next IETF meeting. Before
approving this request, I would like to check whether there are any
claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on this document.
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to approve
your request for a slot on the agenda until I have received a reply
from you and any listed contributor.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks,
Alice
(as FOO WG co-chair)
A.3. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual Internet-Draft
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle
Dear FOO WG, and Especially Authors and Contributors:
As you can see from the consensus call the WG chairs have sent out,
the authors have asked for draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle to be
considered for adoption as a WG document. We would like to check
whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the
document that need to be disclosed.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
please reply to this email message regardless of whether or not you
are personally aware of any relevant IPR. We might not be able to
advance this document to the next stage until we have received a
reply from each author and listed contributor.
If you are on the FOO WG email list but are not an author or listed
contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity
for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP79. Please do not reply
unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Alice
(as FOO WG co-chair)
A.4. Reminder before Working Group Last Call
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle
Dear FOO WG:
The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group
Last Call. Before issuing the Working Group Last Call, we would like
to check whether any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on
the document have not yet been disclosed.
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. We might not be able to
advance this document to the next stage until we have received a
reply from each author and listed contributor.
If you are on the FOO WG email list but are not an author or listed
contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity
for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP79. Please do not reply
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks,
Bob
(as FOO WG co-chair)
A.5. Reminder to Authors and Listed Contributors of a Working Group
Document before IETF Last Call
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle
Dear Authors and Contributors (Chairs and Shepherd cc'd),
Before proceeding with your request to issue an IETF Last Call on
draft-ietf-foo-wiffle, I would like to check whether there are any
claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document.
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to advance
this document to the next stage until I have received a reply from
you and any listed contributor.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks,
Christopher
(as AD)
A.6. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before IETF Last
Call
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar
Dear Nigel,
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
Before proceeding with your request for AD sponsoring of
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar, I would like to check whether there
are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document.
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. I might not be able to advance
this document to the next stage until I have received a reply from
you and any listed contributor.
Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
Thanks,
Christopher
(as AD)
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Scott Brim, Stewart Bryant, Benoit Claise, Adrian Farrel,
Stephen Farrell, Russ Housley, Subramanian Moonesamy, Thomas Narten,
Pete Resnick, and Stephan Wenger for their feedback; to Loa
Andersson, Ross Callon, and George Swallow for drafts of some of the
sample email messages; and to Stephen Farrell for shepherding the
document.
Authors' Addresses
Tim Polk
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, MS 8930
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930
USA
Email: tim.polk@nist.gov
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure June 2012
Peter Saint-Andre
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Phone: +1-303-308-3282
Email: psaintan@cisco.com
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires December 23, 2012 [Page 16]
