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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> > 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).

Uhm - "in any other way acting in order to influence" is not objective.
Having the session scope be objective does not result in a fully objective
criterion, so I'd just drop the "Without limiting ..." sentence.

> > 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?

It's limited to written contributions.  The k text above also covers influencing
discussions.  

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:13 PM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: Bradner, Scott; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-05.txt
> 
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg