Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Mon, 16 September 2013 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD7411E823E; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.844, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RwJnJdjAJsLW; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8811011E823C; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-95-523701a8ba8b
Received: from ESESSHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 83.4D.16099.8A107325; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:03:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [147.214.22.210] (153.88.183.148) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:03:36 +0200
Message-ID: <523701A8.5060704@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:03:36 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128B4B92@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <52331833.4070107@net-zen.net> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43C0221F@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128D936F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <5236FB0B.9070703@net-zen.net>
In-Reply-To: <5236FB0B.9070703@net-zen.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje5KRvMgg7aX3BaP5y5gtfi7tIHV 4uvPH6wWq6e2s1rM+DOR2eLZxvksFnu3z2O0+H1oHqsDh8fBlXPYPVqOvGX1WLLkJ5NHz695 QOLSbEaPL5c/swWwRXHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlHHxxgq3grUpFx+MG9gbGLtkuRk4OCQETiV2r 9rNB2GISF+6tB7K5OIQEDjNKbDz+ixkkISSwhlHiWZsciM0roC0x+VI7K4jNIqAqsXzTb7Aa NgELiS237rOA2KICURIbtl9ggagXlDg58wmYLSIgL3H16VGwZcwC55gkHq0TBLGFBewlHuxc B7V4MZNE05eLjCAJTqBl7asfMUJcJymx5UU7O0SznsSUqy2MELa8xPa3c6AO1ZZY/qyFZQKj 0Cwku2chaZmFpGUBI/MqRvbcxMyc9HLDTYzAiDi45bfuDsZT50QOMUpzsCiJ827SOxMoJJCe WJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgbEtdZPO1kM6phmJ03MPeXvWCxvErTlvPUX77tk9x3fc 3OkW3sU7V1U+ILhYpWnjAqbN97q+TuDJyrY4MN2FJz95qUi9Ve+mrMy5O+wblz4/opxcfXdi xYR5BbJ/7xabrPSo0vxpzLL16607QnyNzjdmfj/XlvVLa6KnmQdv+Qsbq+xYg7hNV5RYijMS DbWYi4oTAVIO16ZWAgAA
Cc: "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe.all@tools.ietf.org>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:03:45 -0000

Hi Glen,

as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder. In
the past, it has happened that even long-time IETF participants with a
lot of experience had forgotten about a particular disclosure until they
received the reminder.

Responding with a "yes, per the draft's boilerplate" should take only a
few seconds of your time.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 16/09/2013 2:35 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> On 09/15/2013 11:06 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Qin is correct. Glen's way of responding does not help.
> 
> Apparently there is no way that would be helpful (see below).
> 
>>
>> The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we are
>> required to answer the following question which is part of the
>> Shepherd write-up as per the instructions from the IESG
>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt:
>>
>>> (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.
>>
>> We have no choice but to relay the question to the authors.
> 
> I see, just following orders.
> 
>>
>> Glen, if you believe that this question should not be part of the
>> write-up, I think that you should take the issue with the IESG.
> 
> I have, and am continuing to do so (see the CC list).
> 
>>
>> In the current situation, unless I receive different instructions from
>> the ADs, I have no choice but to send this document to the IESG
>> mentioning that I did not receive an explicit confirmation.
>>
> 
> Really?  I have no idea, really, how to respond to that statement but
> I'll try anyway.  The explicit statement of conformance to both BCP 78
> and BCP 79 were clearly contained in each and every revision of the
> draft; of course, I know that you are a busy person, and the IESG is
> even busier, so you can't be expected to read every draft posted.  I
> spent my time emailing the pertinent sections of
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 through
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09 to ensure that you were aware that I
> and my co-authors had explicitly stated that the drafts in question
> conformed to the relevant BCPs in every case.  As I'm quite certain that
> you can read, I believe that you _are_ aware of that, so how to
> understand your statement that "I have no choice but to send this
> document to the IESG mentioning that I did not receive an explicit
> confirmation"?  It looks like I have no choice but to believe that you
> (and the IESG) think that we are liars who will confess only under
> direct questioning, like 8-year-old children suspected of some prank.
> This isn't merely obnoxious, it's insulting and highly offensive.
> 
>>
> 
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:45 AM
>>> To: Glen Zorn
>>> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-
>>> qoe.all@tools.ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
>>>
>>> Hi,Glen:
>>> Would you like to not bother IESG to make confirmation?
>>> I am a little confused with what you sent.
>>> What's wrong with the IETF IPR policy?
>>> Your blame on this doesn't help solve the problem.
>>>
>>> Regards!
>>> -Qin
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:gwz@net-zen.net]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:51 PM
>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>>> Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe.all@tools.ietf.org; gwz@net-zen.net;
>>> The IESG
>>> Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
>>>
>>> On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe,
>>>>
>>>> Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required
>>> for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 for this
>>> document have already been filed. The confirmation from each of you is
>>> necessary in order to progress the document towards IESG approval.
>>>>
>>>
>>>                   RTCP XR Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting
>>>                      draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>>
>>>      This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block and associated SDP
>>>      parameters that allow the reporting of QoE metrics for use in a
>>> range
>>>      of RTP applications.
>>>
>>> Status of this Memo
>>>
>>>      This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
>>>      provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>
> 
>