On 26 Mar 2016, at 15:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
6. Failure to Disclose
This paragraph has been over-pruned; it now makes no sense:
In addition to any remedies the IESG may consider other actions.
See
[RFC6701] for details.
Do you mean:
In addition to any remedies available outside the IETF, the IESG
may
consider other actions. See [RFC6701] for details.
I think that's fine, but it needn't even refer to the IESG:
In addition to any remedies available outside the IETF, actions may
be taken inside the IETF to address violations of IPR disclosure
policies; see [RFC6701] for details.
6701 points out that actions can be taken by chairs, ADs, the IESG, or
the IETF as a whole.
But I'm fine with either of the above.
I'm made a little nervous by the fact that RFC 6701 is Informational,
and the text you have removed would give the IESG specific authority
(by BCP)
to impose penalties. So I think you have actually pruned too much. I
would
prefer that authority to be included, so maybe:
I strongly disagree. Quoting 6701:
This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
potential actions that can be taken within the IETF community in
cases related to patents. All of these sanctions are currently
available in IETF processes, and at least two instances of violation
of the IPR policy have been handled using some of the sanctions
listed.
6701 didn't change the sanctions available to the IETF, and this
document doesn't and shouldn't either. So I disagree that this should to
be added to this document.
And on the specific suggestion:
In addition to any remedies available outside the IETF, the IESG
may, when it in good faith concludes that such a violation has
occurred, impose penalties including, but not limited to,
suspending
the posting/participation rights of the offending individual,
suspending the posting/participation rights of other individuals
employed by the same company as the offending individual, amending,
withdrawing or superseding the relevant IETF Documents, and
publicly
announcing the facts surrounding such violation, including the name
of the offending individual and his or her employer or sponsor. See
[RFC6701] for details.
Part of what I didn't like about the -06 version was that it, like you
did in the above, only pointed out the most harsh sanctions discussed in
6701, implying that those are the ones that should be used and not the
others. A perfectly reasonable sanction, in some cases, is:
a. A private discussion between the working group chair or area
director and the individual to understand what went wrong and how
it can be prevented in the future.
Please, leave it short, with either the short correction at the top from
either Brian or myself.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478