On 07/07/13 23:39, "Spencer Dawkins" <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> allegedly wrote:
>The notes I've read in this thread have been very helpful to me. Thank >you for sharing. > >At this point, the only thing I'm obsessing about is that we get decent >IPR declarations when IPR exists. Our BCPs define a contribution broadly >enough to include presentations. The *IRTF* now has an IPR policy that's >roughly equivalent to the IETF's policy; if people can't talk about >research without disclosing, we should have the same stance for >presentations on engineering topics. Spencer, we don't need IPR disclosures if a contribution is not expected to affect IETF outputs. "Participants who realize that the IPR will be or has been incorporated into a submission to be published in an Internet Draft, or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure."
