IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New document shepherd writeup

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 04 May 2022 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A928C157B5D for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 05:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.954
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MzI3gkn65X4S for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2022 05:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62DB5C14F727 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2022 05:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Ktc6D1pKzz1pTmQ; Wed, 4 May 2022 05:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1651668420; bh=J5PuZo7sdXQScq0f96gzzf8jWFh88K689WWkFY6l6ZA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=anHp4Ffc72LuC+RXTHOsnAh85pp/3/RUzNngs7CTAkYsPP1F2peWVvOPpxVN0uIX5 jDpobOpc1+xB3MYF7pJtmsP7ALGGMcHQAb62sQ1NoMW0/YNnwg6bspdehKR0nEAA1H NBx6kn8i47RoHDK5CRNtnsCu6WiShHLNGoyuuoTw=
X-Quarantine-ID: <NU6k5Navtj0z>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.20.80] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Ktc6C2cl3z1pTlq; Wed, 4 May 2022 05:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <69281967-83db-9ec3-26e1-67028a0cfa92@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 08:46:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: New document shepherd writeup
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: IETF WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
References: <F4A44FCE-D31B-4FE8-9950-6C60CDD9DD36@eggert.org> <CAOW+2dsiHimBnUr1++Y+nq6r6oxA5jDa8sXM4g3k-vjXfDbPfQ@mail.gmail.com> <3EE82F27-F170-4E89-8491-B021C94E7B28@eggert.org>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EE82F27-F170-4E89-8491-B021C94E7B28@eggert.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/84oU7De1B1rrsG8hYXwTpAGUa8g>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 12:47:04 -0000

As written, this seems to conflate two different concepts.

One of which seems to be a new requirement, although sometimes practiced.

The important existing requirement was that the authors (and by some 
interpretations the named contributors) confirmed explicitly that all 
known IPR believed to be relevant has been disclosed. That requires 
explicit responses from those people.

This text instead seems to ask if the WG has been reminded that they 
need ot disclose relevant known IPR.  While a reasonable ask, it is not 
the same as the preceding and can not be answered the same way.

Please clarify.

Yours,

Joel

On 5/4/2022 2:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-5-4, at 1:39, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed?"
>>
>> [BA] What is the "interested community" with respect to IPR declarations?  This used to be the authors of the document. Has it changed?
> it used to be just the authors, but then got broadened out to ask about the entire WG. The wording "interested community" was chosen to also capture the non-WG-document case. Could this be made clearer?
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email