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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Carlos and Brian,

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

> Hi, Brian,
>
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Brian Haberman <[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      updated or withdrawn.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
>
>
>
>