Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules
RFC 6702

- 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/

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.

- 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)