On 7/8/2013 7:39 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
But if it's not expected to have any effect on IETF outputs, why bother
presenting it at TSVAREA to the IETF?
FWIW, Martin and I have chatted privately about possible reasons to have
a presentation about a technology which isn't described in a draft, in
TSVAREA. I came away from that discussion thinking that it's really hard
to know that an idea won't affect IETF outputs in the future.
I wasn't there, but I believe a similar question came up most recently
from the audience during a non-draft presentation to SAAG - "is there
IPR on the fascinating topic you're presenting?" Without regard to
anything else, what I heard was that the question pretty much derailed
the conversation, because IETF participants require little prompting to
hypothesize about IPR instead of talking about a technology. So, at
least one reason for me to ask now, is to avoid someone else asking the
same question in a roomful of people when we could be learning from
someone who cared enough to share with us.
Spencer
p.s. Scott, I'm more than somewhat sympathetic to your point of view,
but after the IRSG decided to require disclosures just in case someone
contributed something in a research group that was interesting enough to
take it to the IETF eventually, I'm having a hard time being less
curious in what is, after all, an IETF working group.
Oh wait, QUIC isn't in an internet-draft, so it won't have any effect on IETF
outputs.
We don't need IPR disclosures. We're good.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/http-dtn
has previously presented to TSVAREA to zero effect.
________________________________________
From: tsv-area-boun...@ietf.org [tsv-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott
Brim [s...@internet2.edu]
Sent: 08 July 2013 13:37
To: Spencer Dawkins; ietfdbh
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Draft agenda for the IETF-87 TSV Area meeting uploaded
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."
