RE: New document shepherd writeup

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Historically, it was enough that the I-d contains text saying...

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

How could an author or contributor not know what that means and the requirement to disclose IPR? Well, obviously, there is a bit too much indirection there for many people to realise their obligations. Further, there are some people who don't even know they are co-authors or contributors on some document.

In the past we have been "surprised" by late IPR disclosures on RFCs where one of the inventors had a key role in authoring the document. While the courts may have an opinion on this (IANAL) and the fact of the boilerplate text may be considered a key fact, it doesn't help the WG to develop solutions with the level of IPR coverage that the WG is comfortable with.

So, with that in mind, some WGs that were particularly concerned by the existence of IPR or had been bitten by late disclosures decided that an explicit poll for IPR disclosures would be helpful. The most obvious times to ask are at WG adoption and WG last call.

However, as far as I know, these polls are not a formal part of the IETF procedures. They are just something individual WGs have decided to run: if the participants in the WG decided that they didn't want to go down that path, they could "persuade" the WG chairs to do different.

Now, the new shepherd write-up asks questions, but it doesn't force action. It says...
   Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
   appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79
   have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
   discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property
   rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails.
A write-up might report on the IPR polls conducted by the WG. But it could just respond, "The I-D contains the regular boilerplate text that confirms that all authors and contributors are adhering to BCP 78 and 79," or even, "No such confirmation has been received because the Working Group does not consider it necessary to extract one."

Of course, the IESG could propose a new piece of process mandating confirmation in all cases.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: WGChairs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 08 May 2022 00:05
To: Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>; IETF WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [irsg] New document shepherd writeup


Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> We seem to be asking now:
    >> a) At workgroup adoption time
    >> b) At WGLC call time
    >> c) At Shepherd write-up time (sometimes the same as (b))
    >> I feel like I've been asked at AUTH48 time, but I'm not really sure of
    >that.

    > I (as an author and as a WG chair) am only aware of c). Where is a) and b)
    > formalized?

It's not.  It just happens in some WGs, possibly in error/mis-understanding.
Some WGs would like to know at adoption time if there is any IPR.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide