[Int-dir] R: Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10

[Fioccola Giuseppe <[e-mail]>]

No problem, we can renew the IPR declaration.
If the inconsistency can be solved in this way, I will proceed.

Giuseppe

Da: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:[e-mail]]
Inviato: mercoledì 20 settembre 2017 23:39
A: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Brian Haberman; Fioccola Giuseppe; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Oggetto: Re: Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10

Hi, Carlos and Brian,

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi, Brian,

On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

On 9/20/17 3:11 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:


* The shepherd writeup mentions IPR 2557 in relation to this draft. However, the IPR declaration is only associated with the original individual draft. The IPR declaration needs to be updated to refer to the WG draft.

[GF]: If needed we can renew the IPR declaration to refer to the WG draft.

It might not hurt, but at the same time, a question:

RFC 8179 S 5.4.2 talks about inheritance of IPR disclosures:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-5.4.2

     IPR
     disclosures against a particular Contribution are assumed to be
     inherited by revisions of the Contribution and by any RFCs that
     are published from the Contribution unless the disclosure has been
     updated or withdrawn.

It is not clear if a “revision” of an I-D as a contribution includes renaming it as WG document, merges, etc.

The data tracker tooling seems to be coded such that, if there is a Replaced_by relationship, the IPR declaration follows:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark
“Total number of IPR disclosures found: 1."

And contributors all acknowledged IPR 2557.

So the question:


* The shepherd writeup mentions IPR 2557 in relation to this draft. However, the IPR declaration is only associated with the original individual draft. The IPR declaration needs to be updated to refer to the WG draft.


Does it carry forward?

I think the answer is "sort of"...

If I look at the datatracker page for the WG, I do see 2557 listed
against the WG draft here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ippm/documents/

However, I do not see that declaration when looking at the HTML'ized
version of the draft here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10

Although it is listed against the document at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
(See right underneath IANA a highlighted “1”)

And I’d assume the datatracker as a more authoritative rendering.



while I do see it listed against the original individual submission here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03

The IPR search page does show the indirect disclosure based on the
individual submission.

So, it looks like an issue in the HTML rendering of the WG draft.

Thank you for checking.

Yes, thank you for that.

In any case, I appreciate your initial point and I believe being explicit and update the declaration is the way to go.

Clarity is never wrong, but it's also worth Spencer asking the IESG if they know about this (in)consistency,

I'll let you know what I find out.

Spencer, who has to do SOMETHING around here to be helpful :-)


Thanks,

— Carlos.


Regards,
Brian




Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. 

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. 

Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.