It seems to me that it would be good practice (for someone?) to invite or
remind authors of RFCs of the requirements of BCP 78 and 79 ... but maybe
not use the words the email as below describing confirmation as "necessary
in order to progress the document"
"> 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."
The text at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt "As required
by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd
Write-Up." contains this text
(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
That text is a little different than the template saying "confirmation is
necessary"
I don’t see applicable text in RFC 4858 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858
Seems to me that authors may not really know whether "any and all
appropriate IPR disclosures" have been filed and to ask them to "confirm"
that this is the case asks authors to do something they really are not
able to do without taking on some possible liability for such a
confirmation. Authors may have personal knowledge and belief but to ask
them to "confirm" something is more than that
my two cents
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates
-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Glen Zorn
Cc: rai-ads(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org ; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ; Shida Schubert ; Romascanu,Dan
(Dan) ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org ; Qin
Wu
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