GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6702

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Polk Request for Comments: 6702 NIST Category: Informational P. Saint-Andre ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                           August 2012
    Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
                          Disclosure Rules

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 document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6702.

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 1] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 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
 (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. References .....................................................10
    8.1. Normative References ......................................10
    8.2. 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 .............................................13
   A.4. Reminder before Working Group Last Call ....................14
   A.5. Reminder to Authors and Listed Contributors of a
        Working Group Document before IETF Last Call ...............15
   A.6. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before
        IETF Last Call .............................................15
 Appendix B. Acknowledgements ......................................16

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 2] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 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]) and BCP 78 (see [RFC5378]).  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.

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 3] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

 By intent, this document does not claim to define best current
 practices; instead, it suggests strategies that ADs, WG chairs, and
 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
 [RFC6701].
 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 strategies 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 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

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 4] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

 secretaries to help them with the day-to-day business of running the
 working group (see [RFC2418]), some of the actions suggested in this
 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, 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.

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 5] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

 If the necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have
 a choice: deny the agenda slot unless formal IPR disclosure
 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

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 6] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

 statements have been filed, even if they all work for the same
 organization.  The chairs might also wish to include a reminder about
 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 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 Informational [Page 7] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 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 Informational [Page 8] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 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 not 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
 do not have a direct impact on the security of the Internet.

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 9] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC3979]  Bradner, S., Ed., "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.

8.2. Informative References

 [RFC1602]  Internet Architecture Board and Internet Engineering
            Steering Group, "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.
 [RFC5378]  Bradner, S., Ed., and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
            Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
            November 2008.
 [RFC5741]  Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams,
            Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.
 [RFC6701]  Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
            Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6701,
            August 2012.

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 10] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 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 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 BCP 79 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/>.

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 11] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

 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.
 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)

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 12] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

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.
 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 BCP 79.  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>.
 Thanks,
 Alice
 (as FOO WG co-chair)

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 13] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

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 BCP 79.  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>.
 Thanks,
 Bob
 (as FOO WG co-chair)

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 14] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

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,
 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.)

Polk & Saint-Andre Informational [Page 15] RFC 6702 IPR Disclosure August 2012

 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
 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 Informational [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6702.txt · Last modified: 2012/08/14 00:31 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki