Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-05.txt

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

Thomas,

I've been mulling this over for a couple of weeks. Some
comments below:

On 13/06/2013 04:41, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Scott,
> 
> Thanks for getting a revision out we could look at.
> 
> Looking at the diffs, the new version still seems not quite right to
> me. There was wording introduced in the -04 version that is still in
> the new revision. Specifically:
> 
>>    k. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means making a
>>       Contribution, as described above, or in any other way acting in
>>       order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
>>       IETF Standards Process.  Without limiting the generality of the
>>       foregoing, participating in any part of a session at a live IETF
>>       meeting is deemed to mean participating in the entire session.
> 
> Per discussion we had since Orlando, I don't think we don't want to
> say or imply that participating in one part of a meeting automatically
> implies participating "in the entire session".

That's fair comment, but who decides where to draw the line? "In the
entire session" is about the only fully objective criterion. Alternatives
such as "participating in part of the discussion of a given topic...
is deemed to mean participating in all discussion of that topic" seem
to be too elastic to be much use (or would at any rate be something
to be argued over during litigation).

> 
> "Participation" (in the sense of defining a "contribution") needs to
> be scoped to the topic under discussion. An entire session can cover
> very many completely different topics (e.g., completely different
> drafts).
> 
> The "participating in an IETF discussion or activity" definition is
> new to this ID. It does not appear in RFC 3979.

True, but the word "participating" without a definition was clearly
confusing.

> 
> In thinking about how to fix the language, I think the issue is that
> adding a new definition of "participating in", is effectively
> bordering on redefining what "making a contribution" is. But we
> already have a definition for that. If that defintion is not
> sufficient, what is missing from it? And if there is a problem,
> shouldn't we further clarify that definition then?

The best fix I can think of is to get rid of the word "participating"
completely, with whatever deletions and rewriting that leads to.

> 
> When defining a contribution (or "participating in an IETF discussion
> or activity") one really has to scope that to the specific activity
> one is participating in. But, that really needs to be about a topic or
> technology (i.e., in many/most cases a specific ID -- which is where
> the disclosure obligation really kicks in).  If you try to apply the
> scope to a more artificial boundary (e.g., a WG "meeting" or
> "session"), I think we may be getting into trouble.
> 
> Another way to look at it, it seems to me that the real obligation is
> already (and has been) well defined in 5.1.1 A:
> 
>>  A. Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
>>       the conditions of Section 5.6 which the Contributor believes
>>       Covers or may ultimately Cover his or her written Contribution
>>       (other than a Contribution that is not intended to be used as an
>>       input into the IETF Standards Process), or which the Contributor
>>       reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may
>>       assert against Implementing Technologies based on such written
>>       Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this
>>       Section 5.
> 
> Why is the above not sufficient?

Good point; maybe we are simply trying to say too much.

   Brian

> To further tease apart the proposed text in -05:
> 
>>    k. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means making a
>>       Contribution, as described above, or in any other way acting in
>>       order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
>>       IETF Standards Process.
> 
> This seems OK, not really adding anything new.
> 
>>       Without limiting the generality of the
>>       foregoing, participating in any part of a session at a live IETF
>>       meeting is deemed to mean participating in the entire session.
> 
> Per above, IMO too broad.
> 
>>       Sending a message to an email list is deemed to constitute
>>       participating in the associated email discussion for its entire
>>       duration and any successor email discussions.
> 
> I'm OK with the first part, but only partly with the latter. How does
> one define "for its entire duration"? If we are talking about a thread
> that continues for a few days or a couple of weeks, no problem. If a
> thread goes on for several months (rare, but not unheard of), and
> someone tunes out and stops participating, what does that imply? And
> defining what constitues an "email discussion for its entire duration"
> is a judgement call (i.e., what happens if the subject changes few
> times??)
> 
>> In contrast,
>>       attending a session at a live IETF meeting without making a
>>       Contribution or acting in order to influence the outcome of a
>>       discussion relating to the IETF Standards Process, subscribing to
>>       an IETF email list or reading messages received from an IETF email
>>       list without responding or sending any messages to the list do not
>>       constitute participation in the relevant IETF discussion.
> 
> I think the above is additional clarification that we've come to in
> the last few months. I'm fine with keeping this somewhere. But do we
> really want to add a new definition of "participation" that at least
> partially overlaps with "contribution", when "contribution" is really
> the key definition that matters?
> 
> Thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>