Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules
draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-05
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes
- Section 3.3. Requesting WG Last Call Working Group Last Call is a particularly significant milestone for a working group document, measuring consensus within the working group one final time. If IPR disclosure statements have not been submitted, the judgement of consensus by the chairs would be less than reliable. While I think I understand what the second sentence means, my first impression while reading it was: what's connection between "IPR disclosure statement" and the consensus "reliability"? Do you want to say that the "judgement of consensus would be based on incomplete assumptions", or something similar?. Most certainly not an issue for English native speakers! - I see in section 3.4 If the answer to the write-up question is not favorable, or if the chairs did not take any of the actions listed above, the AD might choose to contact the authors and listed contributors to confirm that the appropriate IPR disclosure statements have been filed before advancing the document through the publication process. That document would be perfect if the email for that use case would be added in the Appendix A. - Section A.4. Reminder to Meeting Presenter Isn't the WG chair who is the supposed to send this email? It's signed by "Christopher (as AD)" - For new comers (and this draft mainly targets new comers), maybe a sentence or two or how to check whether there is already an IPR associated with a draft. Example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-04 -> an IPR link would appear on the top right hand side Or insert the draft/RFC in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes
In section 3.4, after the quote from the shepherd questionnaire, at the beginning of the last paragraph, I suggest inserting a sentence like, "Shepherds should be asking these questions of the authors directly." It's implicit, but it seems to me not implicit enough.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes
- I had a situation where there was an IPR declaration for RFCfoo, but when the RFCfoo-bis draft was being done, nobody went to the IPR holder and asked them to say if the new draft should also have a declaration, and by the time it got to me, nobody from the IPR holder was involved in the WG. That added a bit of delay. Anyway, would it make sense to say that another good thing for a chair/secrerary to do is, when starting work on a bis document where the original RFC has an IPR declaration, please go check with whoever posted that declaration to see if a new one can be gotten or is needed? - I guess the above is similar to handling the replaced-by relationship (that the IPR tools follow) so would similar guidance for that situation be worth adding, i.e. "please check the replaced-by" relationship is in order so the right thing will happen at IETF LC at least. (Sorry for thinking of those so late in the game)
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I've cleared my Discuss, supporting the inclusion of the text in Stewart's Comment. "Socialize" is a colloquialism that might better be replaced by "discuss"; e.g., from Section 3: In general, these opportunities are encountered during initial public discussion, working group adoption... When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a personal draft in hopes of future adoption by a working group...
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I am clearing my discuss on the basis that text of the following form will be added: 5. A Note About Preliminary Disclosures Early disclosures are not necessarily complete disclosures. Indeed, [RFC3979] can be read as encouraging "preliminary disclosure" (e.g., when a new patent application is made), yet a preliminary disclosure might not be updated as new information becomes available later in the standardization process (e.g., when a patent is actually granted). To help prevent early IPR disclosures from becoming stale or incomplete, at important junctures in the standardization process (e.g., before Working Group Last Call or IETF Last Call) WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to request that the Executive Director of the IETF contact those who submitted early IPR disclosures about updating their disclosures.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection