Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 5/23/12 2:16 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I understand why the intended status is not BCP.  I suggest taking into
> account the wider audience feedback to determine whether the it should
> not be made clearer.

OK, Tim and I will look into perhaps adding a sentence or two about this.

> A question which is not covered by the draft is when a draft is
> "adopted" through a charter.  I assume that the AD will contact the
> authors in such cases.

Even if a document is mentioned in a charter as a likely starting point,
the chairs still need to make an explicit call for adoption of that
document as a WG item.

> In Section 2:
> 
> There is a typo, "secretatires".
> 
> in Section 3.1:
> 
>   "If necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have a
>    choice: insist on an informal disclosure in the presentation, or deny
>    the agenda slot unless the IPR disclosure is submitted.  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 a
>    verbal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through multiple
>    cycles."
> 
> The boilerplate explicitly states that this draft as any other draft is
> submitted in full conformance with the provisions of the usual BCPs.  If
> disclosures are necessary they should be submitted especially if the
> goal of this draft is to promote compliance.  Informal disclosures
> causes uncomfortable situations as there are usually valid reasons. 
> There is also the presumption of good faith which makes it a difficult
> decision.  I don't know how often verbal disclosures go on record. 

The slides and audio are part of the record.

> The
> information may not be available to the working group (decisions are
> taken through the mailing list) unless the participants go through the
> audio.

Naturally it would be best if the disclosure were explicitly called out
in the minutes, as well. However, I agree with you that a formal
disclosure is always best. Let me chat about this with Tim.

> In A.1:
> 
>   "In order to comply with IETF processes while avoiding unnecessary
>    delays, document authors and contributors to our discussions in
>    the FOO WG are asked to take these messages seriously, and to
>    reply in a timely fashion."
> 
> Is there any message from WG chairs which should not be taken seriously?
> :-)  I'll suggest:
> 
>    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 take pay careful attention to these messages and to
>    reply in a timely fashion.

WFM.

> In A.2:
> 
>   "We will weigh this information when we judge the consensus on
>   the call for adoption."
> 
> The wording is not that clear.  It is up to the participants to see
> whether they are ok to work the specification given the IPR claims.  Sam
> Hartman posted some possible responses in such cases (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08992.html ). 

Yes, I saw that message, and I thought it was helpful.

> What we were are looking for here is whether there are any claims.  The
> easy path is to remove the sentence and keep the IPR question for the
> follow-up question.

Now your wording is not clear to me. What do you mean by "the follow-up
question"?

> In A.3:
> 
>   "The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group
>    Last Call.  Before issuing the Last Call, we would like to check"
> 
> I suggest "before issuing the Working Group Last Call" as Last Call is
> generally considered as what's in the subject line of this message.

Good point.

Thanks for the feedback!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/