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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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

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.

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 
).  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.

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.

I'll +1 the draft.  Please feel free to ignore the comments to keep 
matters simple.

Regards,
-sm