status of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

I wanted to provide on update on where we are with this.

We had a lengthy last call discussion in the spring, which raised a number of issues that we will have to deal with. Unfortunately, a lot of my time was consumed in other matters so we didn’t make immediate conclusions. But after IETF97 I have instructed the authors to take into account what I saw as the feedback in the last call. Please see my conclusions below and let me know if you there’s anything amiss.

The authors will be revising the document, and once that happens there will be another last call. Note that there are a few issues that will require further discussion on that last call.

Jari Arkko, as responsible AD for the document

——

Stephen Farrell’s concern re: remote vs. in-person attendees was resolved I think without text changes (Jari’s mail on March 22)

Russ Housley’s concern re: “IETF sanctioned” should be resolved per Brian’s and Harald's suggestions (Brian's mail on March 26).

Russ Housley’s concern re: changes from the previous RFC section is basically valid (Russ’s mail on March 25), and you guys need to act on that. Maybe my diffs from earlier are helpful in gathering an explanation of changes.

Gonzalo Camarillo’s concern re: ADs being assumed to read all documents in their area seems valid and needs to be fixed. There was no unanimous opinion on this, but I think enough people commented that felt it was an issue (Spencer, Jari, Gonzalo, Alissa, Barry, Ben vs. Brian and Stephan). Stephan makes an argument on April 4 that “reasonably and personally” includes awareness of the documents, but I think that is incorrect if the future BCP on this topic explicitly rules everything in the area to be something where the AD participates in, even if he or she might not even be the AD for the group in question. Finally, I don’t think the suggestion from John Klensin and others on ADs sending notes of recusal works well because, frankly, how would you recuse when the initial problem we had was that you might not read enough about the other half WG’s work to recognise there’s an issue. The suggestion from John was also opposed by Joel.

I’d suggest using a variation Spencer’s wording (Spencer’s mail on March 30) or alternatively you can work out suitable words yourselves. I don’t think the general language from Barry works (April 4) because the WG chairs and ADs are really in a different position, and it is better to separate them in the text. Here’s my suggestion:

OLD:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a working group chair or Area Director constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant working group or area.
NEW:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a working group chair or Area Director constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant working group or working groups he or she is responsible for in an area.

A follow-up to Gonzalo’s concern was raised later in the discussion re: ADs often seeing the materials late in the process. There seemed to be support for adding this to the document. I think it may make sense to add this too, though I think the previous change is the fundamental thing. Here’s the suggested additional text:
NEW:
By the nature of their office, IETF area directors may become aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG review) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those Contributions until they become aware of them.

Michael Cameron suggested the removal of the “reasonably” language in his April 5 email. I did not see sufficient backing for this particular change, but since he initiated it I think due to the discussion of the AD role requirements, I think the above changes cover that original reason for his issue. I think there were other issues too, however, and I’m not sure we’ve adequately discussed those yet. There was a distinction on “covers” vs. “ultimately covers” for instance. May need more discussion during the new last call.

John Klensin suggested in his April 5 mail that the document be changed to become more of an ethical obligations than a legalistic rules one. I did not see enough support for this change. Brian Carpenter’s suggestion (April 6) on draft-ymbk-ietf-ethics seemed a reasonable one.

Alissa Cooper’s editorial comments from her mail on April 1: These need to be acted upon (except the first issue which was follow-up to Gonzalo’s issue).

Lars Eggert’s editorial comments from his mail on April 4: These need to be acted upon. In addition, there were a number of more substantial issues in his email:

- including IRTF and RGs within the definition of “IETF documents”. This is tricky, because the IETF can’t specify what IRTF wants. However, I think we can do this, *if* we also extend the last call and point this out to IRTF participants explicitly, if we don't have differing rules.

- relaxing rules regarding not including terms: I’d suggest we not need new text for this. I also don’t want to make exceptions for IRTF, unless we have to. I think the current text supports the running code on the IRTF side as well.

- irtf stream manager: I’d suggest we take out the following text: "(i.e., the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) and Independent Submission Editor)."

Pete Resnick suggested to put back in the three principles to Section 2 that were deleted from the previous RFC (April 11). These should be adopted, lacking evidence to the contrary (since we are doing a -bis; we should only make substantive changes when there’s clear consensus to do so).

Pete Resnick suggested to put back the material from RFC 3979 Section 4.1 that were deleted from the previous RFC (April 11). These should be adopted, lacking evidence to the contrary (since we are doing a -bis).

Pete Resnick had editorial suggestions on Sections 5.2.1, 5.4.2, and 5.5 (April 11). These should be adopted.

Pete Resnick had a concern on forcing people to document applicability to the contribution 5.4.2 (April 11). This may require further discussion, although I personally am inclined to agree with Pete. I had posted a response on April 25, for which there was no other response. Needs further discussion during 2nd last call.

Pete Resnick had a concern on adding the word “all” to Section 7 (April 11). This seems like an oversight to me, and should be corrected.

Finally, on my personal re-read of the document, I’d suggest the following:

In Section 7,
OLD:
This paragraph is provided for information only:
NEW:
The following paragraphs are provided for information only:

(I think the rest of the section is informative, correct?)