IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [irsg] New document shepherd writeup

Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@macmic.franken.de> Fri, 06 May 2022 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.tuexen@macmic.franken.de>
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 1168BC159525 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2022 04:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1fPCcnVH0Uh9 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2022 04:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97CE9C14F74F for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 May 2022 04:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:6557:eb9f:d6e4:8420]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 100FD721E280A; Fri, 6 May 2022 13:09:07 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [irsg] New document shepherd writeup
From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@macmic.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <F7BF75B3-B58E-4703-B2E8-4918CA5EE463@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 13:09:06 +0200
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <90043788-6056-497E-BB8D-6C1EA129A40B@macmic.franken.de>
References: <B7DD2B59-008A-45FD-BEA8-310D47897BE1@tzi.org> <F7BF75B3-B58E-4703-B2E8-4918CA5EE463@gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.82.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/rNCsqpIiZJpL2_BA0zUO7bdq8n8>
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: Fri, 06 May 2022 11:09:16 -0000

> On 6. May 2022, at 02:47, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> From my perspective, the thing to do is have an automated message sent to listed authors and contributors asking about IPR when a draft is filed. It gets posted when all of the replies have been received.
I like that idea. But isn't it more strict compared to what we have today?
It is allowed to have some time between the contribution (submission of the ID)
and the IPR declaration.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> 
>> On May 5, 2022, at 5:03 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 6. May 2022, at 01:54, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This whole thread confuses me.
>>> 
>>> Isn't the reason to subject everyone to repeated instances of NoteWell
>>> specifically so that they will know they have to declare IPR?
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> (I'm not even sure I understand why we ask authors again, given that)
>> 
>> Because humans don’t always do what we think they should, much less so always right away.
>> 
>> Having a milestone where they are compelled to say they are, indeed, now in compliance is good.
>> Having collected this statement is also great for the courts (which is why I don’t understand that we don’t have a defined way to collect it).
>> 
>> My question was how large that class should be, and what should happen if not everyone in the class responds.
>> With authors, the game is clear: no declaration of compliance, no authorship of an RFC.
>> With other contributors, not so much.
>> And it puts a chilling effect on identifying contributors (and their contributions!), which is actually counterproductive.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email