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

"GTW" <gtw@gtwassociates.com> Mon, 16 September 2013 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <gtw@gtwassociates.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 1C0DC11E8286; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <ueEZ7CghoDxp>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace (char 20 hex): X-Spam-Report: ...that system for details.\n \n Content previ[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 ueEZ7CghoDxp; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s6.mail.rcig.net (s6.mail.rcig.net [216.87.38.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384E611E8282; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-71-191-174-95.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([71.191.174.95]:62261 helo=GTWPC) by s6.mail.rcig.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gtw@gtwassociates.com>) id 1VLZD4-0005rn-T3; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:51:28 -0500
Message-ID: <30E1D5B9BD8E4F01ACBA3F358A8680C7@GTWPC>
From: GTW <gtw@gtwassociates.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
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> <523701A8.5060704@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <523701A8.5060704@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:51:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3505.912
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3505.912
X-ACL-Warn: X-The email account used to send this email was: gtw@gtwassociates.com
Cc: rai-ads@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>, 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
Reply-To: GTW <gtw@gtwassociates.com>
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 13:51:38 -0000

It seems to me  that it would be good practice (for someone?) to invite or
remind authors of RFCs  of the requirements of BCP 78 and 79  ... but maybe
not use the words the email as below describing confirmation  as  "necessary 
in order to progress the document"

"> 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."

The text at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt  "As required 
by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd 
Write-Up."  contains this text
(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
That text is a little different than the template  saying "confirmation is 
necessary"

I don’t see applicable  text in RFC 4858  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858


Seems to me that authors may not really know whether   "any and all
appropriate IPR disclosures" have been filed and to ask them to "confirm"
that this is the case asks authors  to  do something they really are not
able to do without taking on some possible liability for such a
confirmation.  Authors may have personal knowledge and belief but to ask 
them to "confirm" something is more than that

my two cents



George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates
-----Original Message----- 
From: Gonzalo Camarillo
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Glen Zorn
Cc: rai-ads@tools.ietf.org ; ietf@ietf.org ; Shida Schubert ; Romascanu,Dan 
(Dan) ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe.all@tools.ietf.org ; Qin 
Wu
Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

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
>>>>
>>
>
>