Re: [dnssd] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 3/11/15 7:19 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Pete Resnick<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>    
>>    The draft includes the boilerplate confirming that the document "is
>>    submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP
>>    79". No disclosures have been made, nor are expected to be made in an
>>    Informational requirements draft.
>>      
> Argh, sorry, I didn't catch that.   Tim, please ask the authors to say explicitly whether they are aware of any additional IPR.   The boilerplate isn't adequate, because it is added by a tool, and is not present in the XML source.
>    

As we've said in the past, it's fine if the relationship between a 
shepherd and the authors is such that the shepherd can confidently say, 
"Yeah, these folks did the right thing." But in this case, there's this 
IPR declaration, and the answer to the next question about whether there 
were any IPR declarations was "No". So I'd like to be sure that due 
diligence was done here.

>> There was an IPR disclosure made on the earlier pre-WG version of this
>> document back in 2013. Were the authors asked whether that disclosure
>> also applies to this version of the document? Is the WG aware of this
>> disclosure? Did the WG discuss the disclosure? Were any concerns raised?
>>      
> Hm.   This has certainly come up in meetings.   I think the only time it was mentioned on the mailing list was prior to the BoF that produced dnssd.   The disclosure has been in the tracker all along.   Are you suggesting that the working group may have agreed to advance the document without being aware of this, despite the IPR having been present in the tracker?
>    

If it's come up in meetings, that's enough to convince me that the WG 
was aware of this. It was the existence of it in the tracker and the 
shepherd's comment that there was no related IPR that caused me to ask 
what was going on here.

As far as I'm concerned, I've made you (Ted) aware of this issue and I'm 
happy to clear this part of the DISCUSS and let you contend with it. (Or 
I can track it; whichever works for you.)

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]