Re: Concerns about draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-05 becoming a Best Current Practice

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

SM:

> An alternative might be:
> 
>   3. IETF participants devise solutions for the Internet that meet the
>      needs of diverse technical and operational environments.
> 
>      The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
>      technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
>      design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the
>      Internet work better.  The IETF puts its emphasis on technical
>      competence, rough consensus and individual participation, and needs
>      to be open to competent input from any source.
> 
>      IETF participants use their best engineering judgment to find the
>      best solution for the whole Internet, not just the best solution
>      for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user.  While we
>      all have ideas that may stand improvement from time to time, no
>      one shall ever knowingly contribute advice or text that would make
>      a standard technically inferior.

This proposed text is an improvement, but I would be much happier with the addition of one word to the first sentence:  ... devise solutions for the global Internet ...

>> BCP 79 is the proper reference.
>> 
>> Following the IPR rules is an obligation for all IETF participants.  It was in RFC 3184, and I think we need to keep in this document.
> 
> The text in RFC 3184 is as follows:
> 
>  "We follow the intellectual property guidelines outlined in BCP 9."
> 
> In my opinion that text does not fit under the third statement.  An alternative, which was suggested, is to have it under another guideline.  The comment mentions that it is an obligation and I agree with that.  The point being discussed is that the obligation has to be kept in this document because it was in RFC 3184.  The document has been described as being about personal conduct and personal interaction.  The document does not discuss about rules.

Disclosure of IPR that you know about is personal conduct.

> The Note Well is used to direct people to BCP 79.  A person attending a working group session will be told about the Note Well.  A person subscribing to an IETF mailing list will be sent a pointer to the Note Well.  I suggest leaving it to the Note Well to list the rules as it has not been argued that the Note Well is inadequate.

RFC 3184 included a sentence telling people about the expected conduct regarding IPR disclosure.  I strongly believe that 3184 should do the same.

Russ