IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [irsg] New document shepherd writeup

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 06 May 2022 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 079EFC147921 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2022 17:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 EUP4SrnLUvug for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2022 17:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (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 38F20C14F723 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2022 17:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4KvW4H2xXjzDCbc; Fri, 6 May 2022 02:03:27 +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: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <15584.1651794856@localhost>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 02:03:26 +0200
Cc: IETF WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B7DD2B59-008A-45FD-BEA8-310D47897BE1@tzi.org>
References: <F4A44FCE-D31B-4FE8-9950-6C60CDD9DD36@eggert.org> <CAOW+2dsiHimBnUr1++Y+nq6r6oxA5jDa8sXM4g3k-vjXfDbPfQ@mail.gmail.com> <3EE82F27-F170-4E89-8491-B021C94E7B28@eggert.org> <69281967-83db-9ec3-26e1-67028a0cfa92@joelhalpern.com> <FAC35BA0-0955-4CCF-A278-D9BFF233C603@eggert.org> <E66933CF-1272-48D2-A8E7-BE1CE0859D3B@macmic.franken.de> <CALaySJJrvyeej_jkzByVZbcMp6Q=Yj=ZcA63kck1J2FT0_3k0g@mail.gmail.com> <015C8742-F6C4-4C78-89A5-D2F912231D7E@tzi.org> <15584.1651794856@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.82.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/ydcbEUq8fI9jnPqRB5wwSyzvAp4>
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 00:03:35 -0000

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