Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure Procedure in RFC 3979
draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00

[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS to at least be sure we talk about this for a moment on the call.

1. Why can't we use RFC Errata for this?
2. Or, can we fold in with other fixes as Sam suggests?
3. If we go this route, I agree with Dan, that "IPR" is redundant in the new sentence.

I suspect the answers are (1) because this is legal stuff, it's too important and must be very formal IESG consensus, (2) we can't touch the other document for fear of regression errors, (3) maybe so, but that wasn't the agreed upon wording so we'd have to cycle back through the WG.

But I'd be pleased to be wrong.

[Ballot comment]
The recommended change is 'changing the word "discloser" to "IPR holder" in the above text' which will make the respective sentence in the text:

'the IETF
Executive Director shall request from the IPR holder of such IPR,
a written assurance ...'

Is the repetition intentional? or should the change rather be just "discloser" to "holder"?

[Ballot comment]
Please pick one spelling: "3rd" or "third"

  Please include the folloing in the heading on the title page:
  "Updates: 3979 (once approved)"

PROTO Write-up

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

    Harald Alvestrand. Yes.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

    Yes, and no.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

  No. We believe the legal review of the document has been adequate.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here.

  No.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

  The consensus is solid.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

  No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

    Yes.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

  There is only one reference, and it is normative.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
          describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
          the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
          needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  The dummy IANA considerations section exists and is suitably dummy.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

  No such section appears.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary

  This document clarifies and updates a single sentence in RFC 3979.
  Specifically, when 3rd party IPR disclosures are made, the intention
  is that the IETF Executive Director notify the IPR holder that a 3rd
  party disclosure has been filed, and to ask the IPR holder whether
  they have any disclosure that needs to be made, per applicable
  RFC3979 rules.

          Working Group Summary

  The working group process provided an interesting discussion of past
  history of the handling of IPR disclosures, but there was no real controversy.

          Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by Harald Alvestrand.

          Personnel

  The document shepherd is Harald Alvestrand.
  The responsible AD is Brian Carpenter.

This is a publication request on draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00 as a BCP.
The WG chairs believe that this could reasonably be considered part of BCP 79.


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

    Harald Alvestrand. Yes.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

  Yes, and no.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

  No. We believe the legal review of the document has been adequate.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here.

  No.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

  The consensus is solid.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

  No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

  Yes.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

  There is only one reference, and it is normative.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
        describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
        the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
        needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  The dummy IANA considerations section exists and is suitably dummy.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

  No such section appears.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

        Technical Summary

  This document clarifies and updates a single sentence in RFC 3979.
  Specifically, when 3rd party IPR disclosures are made, the intention
  is that the IETF Executive Director notify the IPR holder that a 3rd
  party disclosure has been filed, and to ask the IPR holder whether
  they have any disclosure that needs to be made, per applicable
  RFC3979 rules.

        Working Group Summary

  The working group process provided an interesting discussion of past
  history of the handling of IPR disclosures, but there was no real controversy.

        Document Quality

  The document has been reviewed by Harald Alvestrand.

        Personnel

  The document shepherd is Harald Alvestrand.
  The responsible AD is Brian Carpenter.