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."

Reply via email to