Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-02

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Tue, 03 June 2003 17:30 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15559 for <ipr-wg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:30:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h53HTnU04774 for ipr-wg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:29:49 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HTnB04771 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:29:49 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15548 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFZl-0000rG-00 for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:27:57 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFZk-0000rD-00 for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:27:56 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HTCB04708; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:29:12 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HQtB04464 for <ipr-wg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:26:55 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15415 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFWx-0000or-00 for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:25:03 -0400
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NFWw-0000on-00 for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:25:02 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h53HQGv15051; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:26:16 +0300
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:26:15 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-02
In-Reply-To: <3EDCC0FD.8B24953@hursley.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306032024490.14755-100000@netcore.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: ipr-wg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipr-wg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 28 May 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > > >   If a verbal IPR disclosure has been minuted in a WG meeting,
> > > > >   or an informal IPR disclosure has been made on an IETF mailing list,
> > > > >   documents should not be last-called until a formal IPR disclosure
> > > >
> > > > is your use of "should" here intentional? (I take it, yes).  I'd use
> > > > "must" and fall back to the exception list mentioned above when that isn't
> > > > the sensible approach.
> > >
> > > Well, I would prefer to give the IESG discretion, hence "should". That
> > > is so that if they detect a DoS attack or pure FUD, they have a
> > > way out.
> > 
> > My worry with should is "nah, I don't bother with adding IPR
> > considerations in the last call, it isn't required -- only a should" or
> > "this seems like a difficult issue, so I'll just omit the rule so it's
> > easier".
> > 
> > Ie. attitude problems.  With a must, it's more difficult to justify why it
> > wasn't done.. unless there are very good reasons for it.
> > 
> > My fears wrt. WG chairs or ADs/IESG may be unfounded too, of course. :-)
> 
> I'm actually more worried about this the more I think about it.
> Over on another mailing list we are talking about how to speed up
> the IETF process. With your proposal, an inaccurate informal disclosure
> or even a 3rd party rumour could block a draft for a long time. I trust
> the IESG on this more than I trust FUD-mongers, so I really do think
> we must give the IESG the possibility of proceeding without a
> disclosure if needed.

Could you send me some more information off-list?

I think I can accept a 'should' to leave room for flexibility; I'll add
some recommanding text why it is a "strong should", though.


-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg