Re: New document shepherd writeup

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

> On May 4, 2022, at 6:12 AM, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-5-4, at 15:46, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> first, the term "interested community" was already used in several places in the previous shepherd writeup template; see https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/blob/5a31658b7f87054237430ee5fab8a23a8b32a7e8/ietf/templates/doc/shepherd_writeup.txt
> 
> You're correct that a change was made to this original question:
> 
> 	(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate
> 	IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> 	of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
> 
> The text was broadened to "the interested community", because the shepherd need not only check that the authors have done so, but also that all contributors have done so. We probably should have phrased it as such and not reused the "interested community" term which was already used elsewhere.

From my perspective, if that is intended, then it should be said. Right now, we poll the authors and contributors.

> Thanks,
> Lars
>