ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

2013-09-16 08:22:50
Hi, 

I have doubts myself, doubts that I shared with the IESG that this question is 
really needed. Asking this question at the end of the process after the 
conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 was explicitly declared with each version of 
the I-D submitted seems redundant. It is probably intended to cover some corner 
cases where contributors forgot particular disclosures, or disclosures happened 
after the last I-D revision was submitted, or some of the authors on the 
authors list were not involved directly in the latest submitted revisions of 
the I-D. As WG chair however, as long as the question is formulated under its 
current format in the shepherd write-up form, I feel that I cannot responsibly 
answer to it without asking the authors.

To quote Gonzalo: Responding with a "yes, per the draft's boilerplate" should 
take only a few seconds

Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo 
[mailto:Gonzalo(_dot_)Camarillo(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:04 PM
To: Glen Zorn
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Qin Wu; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-
qoe(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; Shida Schubert; 
rai-ads(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; The
IESG; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Hi Glen,

as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder. In
the past, it has happened that even long-time IETF participants with a
lot of experience had forgotten about a particular disclosure until they
received the reminder.

Responding with a "yes, per the draft's boilerplate" should take only a
few seconds of your time.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 16/09/2013 2:35 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
On 09/15/2013 11:06 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Hi,

Qin is correct. Glen's way of responding does not help.

Apparently there is no way that would be helpful (see below).


The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we are
required to answer the following question which is part of the
Shepherd write-up as per the instructions from the IESG
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt:

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR

disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78

and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

We have no choice but to relay the question to the authors.

I see, just following orders.


Glen, if you believe that this question should not be part of the
write-up, I think that you should take the issue with the IESG.

I have, and am continuing to do so (see the CC list).


In the current situation, unless I receive different instructions
from the ADs, I have no choice but to send this document to the IESG
mentioning that I did not receive an explicit confirmation.


Really?  I have no idea, really, how to respond to that statement but
I'll try anyway.  The explicit statement of conformance to both BCP 78
and BCP 79 were clearly contained in each and every revision of the
draft; of course, I know that you are a busy person, and the IESG is
even busier, so you can't be expected to read every draft posted.  I
spent my time emailing the pertinent sections of
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 through
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09 to ensure that you were aware that I
and my co-authors had explicitly stated that the drafts in question
conformed to the relevant BCPs in every case.  As I'm quite certain
that you can read, I believe that you _are_ aware of that, so how to
understand your statement that "I have no choice but to send this
document to the IESG mentioning that I did not receive an explicit
confirmation"?  It looks like I have no choice but to believe that you
(and the IESG) think that we are liars who will confess only under
direct questioning, like 8-year-old children suspected of some prank.
This isn't merely obnoxious, it's insulting and highly offensive.



Regards,

Dan




-----Original Message-----
From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill(_dot_)wu(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Glen Zorn
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-
qoe(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

Hi,Glen:
Would you like to not bother IESG to make confirmation?
I am a little confused with what you sent.
What's wrong with the IETF IPR policy?
Your blame on this doesn't help solve the problem.

Regards!
-Qin
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Zorn [mailto:gwz(_at_)net-zen(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:51 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: 
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
gwz(_at_)net-zen(_dot_)net; The IESG
Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe

On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe,

Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required
for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 for
this document have already been filed. The confirmation from each of
you is necessary in order to progress the document towards IESG
approval.


                  RTCP XR Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting
                     draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00

Abstract

     This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block and associated
SDP
     parameters that allow the reporting of QoE metrics for use in a
range
     of RTP applications.

Status of this Memo

     This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
     provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan