faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 6702 - Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Right


Or Display the document by number




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.

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

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.

   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

   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.

   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

   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.

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.

   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.

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.

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/>.

   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)

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)

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)

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.)

   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

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA