Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 30/03/2016 14:38, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2016, at 15:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>> 6. Failure to Disclose
>>
>> This paragraph has been over-pruned; it now makes no sense:
>>
>>>   In addition to any remedies the IESG may consider other actions. See
>>>   [RFC6701] for details.
>>
>> Do you mean:
>>
>>    In addition to any remedies available outside the IETF, the IESG may
>>    consider other actions. See [RFC6701] for details.
> 
> I think that's fine, but it needn't even refer to the IESG:
> 
>    In addition to any remedies available outside the IETF, actions may
>    be taken inside the IETF to address violations of IPR disclosure
>    policies; see [RFC6701] for details.
> 
> 6701 points out that actions can be taken by chairs, ADs, the IESG, or the IETF as a whole.
> 
> But I'm fine with either of the above.
> 
>> I'm made a little nervous by the fact that RFC 6701 is Informational,
>> and the text you have removed would give the IESG specific authority (by BCP)
>> to impose penalties. So I think you have actually pruned too much. I would
>> prefer that authority to be included, so maybe:
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree. Quoting 6701:
> 
>    This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
>    potential actions that can be taken within the IETF community in
>    cases related to patents.  All of these sanctions are currently
>    available in IETF processes, and at least two instances of violation
>    of the IPR policy have been handled using some of the sanctions
>    listed.
> 
> 6701 didn't change the sanctions available to the IETF, and this document doesn't and shouldn't either. So I disagree that this
> should to be added to this document.

Hmm. What that amounts to is indirect normative references to
those sanctions. That's a little baroque for my taste. (Also,
the normative references in 6701 include [BCP79], specified
as the two documents that this draft obsoletes.)

I see your point, though. Would you buy something like this?

"...see [RFC6701] for details of the sanctions defined in
various existing Best Current Practice documents".

    Brian

> And on the specific suggestion:
> 
>>    In addition to any remedies available outside the IETF, the IESG
>>    may, when it in good faith concludes that such a violation has
>>    occurred, impose penalties including, but not limited to, suspending
>>    the posting/participation rights of the offending individual,
>>    suspending the posting/participation rights of other individuals
>>    employed by the same company as the offending individual, amending,
>>    withdrawing or superseding the relevant IETF Documents, and publicly
>>    announcing the facts surrounding such violation, including the name
>>    of the offending individual and his or her employer or sponsor. See
>>    [RFC6701] for details.
> 
> Part of what I didn't like about the -06 version was that it, like you did in the above, only pointed out the most harsh
> sanctions discussed in 6701, implying that those are the ones that should be used and not the others. A perfectly reasonable
> sanction, in some cases, is:
> 
>    a. A private discussion between the working group chair or area
>       director and the individual to understand what went wrong and how
>       it can be prevented in the future.
> 
> Please, leave it short, with either the short correction at the top from either Brian or myself.
> 
> pr