Re: Proposed New Note Well

John C Klensin <> Mon, 04 January 2016 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30FE1A8A1D; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:05:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g_1R85egUi7T; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE9CE1A8A1C; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1aG7dC-000LuY-Bx; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:05:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:05:09 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:05:18 -0000

A few quick observations:

The IETF is really only one body (or pretends to be).  If we are
going to revise the Note Well, let's make it cover the whole
system of things we expect people to know about and conform
with, not just IPR policy (with, in this version, a nod to
privacy).  In particular, don't say "By participating with the
IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes and policies" and then
identify only a few of them as if they were the complete list.

The absence of any reference to social behavior norms (e.g.,
anti-harassment policies) is particularly notable by its absence.

Also, I assume the IESG does not intend to publish this document
with a "TBD" in it.   Is there a rush such that the community
should be asked to comment on an incomplete document?  I suggest
that the IESG would not tolerate a request for IETF Last Call on
a WG document that contained such a loose end.


--On Monday, January 04, 2016 07:41 -0800 IESG Secretary
<> wrote:

> The IESG and the IAOC legal team have worked together to
> propose a new version for the note well that is used in
> various IETF activities. The intent is to make the note well
> shorter and more readable, and point more clearly to the full
> documentation of the various rules.
> The current note well is available at
> and the proposed new
> one is below.
> The IESG will make a decision about this matter shortly.
> Please provide comments, if any, to or to the
> IESG at before January 30, 2016.
> ———
> Note Well
> This summary does not contain all the details and is only
> meant to point you in the right direction. Exceptions may
> apply. The IETF's patent policy and the definition of an IETF
> "contribution" are set forth in BCP 79; please read it
> carefully.
> The brief summary:
> • By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF
> processes and policies. • If you are aware that any
> contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent
> applications that are owned by, controlled by, or would
> benefit you or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or
> not participate in the discussion. • As a participant in any
> IETF activity you acknowledge that written, audio and video
> records of meetings may be made and may be available to the
> public, and that recordings of you or your likeness, voice and
> conduct at the recorded event may be displayed, transmitted,
> copied, used and promoted in electronic and physical media
> accessible throughout the world. • Personal information that
> you provide to IETF will be handled in accordance with the
> IETF Privacy Statement set.
> For further information, talk to a chair, ask an Area
> Director, or review the following: ​
> BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process)
> ​BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes)
> ​BCP 78 (on copyright in IETF documents)
> ​BCP 79 (on patents covering IETF documents)
> TBD (on IETF Privacy Statement)