--On Monday, September 16, 2013 07:14 -1000 Randy Bush
<randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
can we try to keep life simple? it is prudent to check what
(new) ipr exists for a draft at the point where the iesg is
gonna start the sausage machine to get it to rfc. if the iesg
did not do this, we would rightly worry that we were open to a
submarine job. this has happened, which is why this formality
is in place.
Agreed. I hope there are only two issues in this discussion:
(1) Whether the IESG requires that the question be asked in some
particular form, especially a form that would apply to
other-than-new IPR. I think the answer to that question is
clearly "no".
(2) Whether the "submitted in full conformance..." statement in
I-Ds is sufficient to cover IPR up to the point of posting of
the I-D. If the answer is "no", then there is a question of why
we are wasting the bits. If it is "yes", as I assume it is,
then any pre-sausage questions can and should be limited to IPR
that might be new to one or more of the authors.
if some subset of the authors prefer to play cute, my alarms
go off. stuff the draft until they can give a simple direct
answer.
Agreed. While I wouldn't make as big an issue of it as he has
(personal taste), I agree with him that asking an author to
affirm that he or she really, really meant it and told the truth
when posting a draft "submitted in full conformance..." is
inappropriate and demeaning. While I think there might have
been other, more desirable, ways to pursue it, I don't think
that raising the issue falls entirely into the "cute" range.
john