Interesting proposal. I suggest perhaps a different "Contributions"
section related to IPR considerations, including also good for open
source/public domain information.
For me, this would be a quick/goto read item after reading a new I-D
abstract of interest.
Good idea.
--
HLS
On 3/25/2013 1:42 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Scott" == Scott Brim <swb(_at_)internet2(_dot_)edu> writes:
Scott> On 03/25/13 11:54, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
allegedly wrote:
>> So perhaps a little more guidance to authors and WGs about
>> acknowledgments would be in order.
Scott> or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section
Scott> and not subject to IETF guidance.
I strongly prefer that documents list the names of people who have made
significant enough contributions that they are likely to be significant
from an IPR standpoint (copyright or patent). I don't care whether this
is in an acknowledgments or contributors section (there are important
differences).
I understand we may not have a community consensus on this. However I
think it's important to remember that the names in the document do help
people understand their IPR risk exposure. (negative in the sense of
patents; you know who probably was obligated to disclose). It's not
absolute or authoratative, but I sure wouldn't want to be the one
explaining to a judge how I'd made nothing that ccould be considered an
IETF contribution in a document for which I was listed in the
contributors section.
If I were an chair of a WG and the WG had consensus they wanted to make
sure someone was on the hook for IPR, I'd be really put out if the
editor objected to listing them.
So, while I agree that excessive guidance would be excessive, as with so
many things, it depends.