Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:20:44 -0600

Hi Stephan, thanks for the feedback and sorry about the slow reply.

On 4/30/12 11:19 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
> Here are a few comments to this draft.
> Stephan
> 
> (1) Section 3.1, final paragraph.  An IETF disclosure has to be made
> against a Contribution.  In the case described in this paragraph, the
> Contribution may not have been made at the time of the Disclosure request,
> and, therefore, it would be impossible to make a Disclosure.  For example,
> if someone wants to discuss a technology verbally, you cannot make an IPR
> disclosure before the words have been uttered.  I would remove this
> paragraph.  Alternatively, limit it to "materials you plan to make
> available at the meeting" in the sprit it of section 4.1.

I see your point: one can't realistically be expected to file a
disclosure before making a Contribution. Tim and I will discuss together
how we'd like to make this clearer. One possibility is to use a less
formal method, e.g., providing information about known IPR in the
materials to be presented or posting to the relevant discussion list
ahead of time (rather than filing a formal disclosure).

> (2) Section 3.2, "silence may be interpreted as a weak "No".".  This
> statement is IMO not supported by the IETF patent policy, and should
> therefore be removed.  Generally speaking, any additional burden to
> non-Contributors beyond making them aware of the voluntary disclosure
> opportunity IMP constitutes a policy change and must be avoided.

I think you're right that absence of evidence can't be interpreted as
evidence of absence. If Tim agrees, we'll stike that sentence.

> (3) Section 3.3.  I would replace "author" with "authors and other
> Contributors".  Or "known Contributors", "prominent Contributors", or
> something like this.  It is entirely possible, and in fact not uncommon,
> that non-author Contributors influence the technology choices of I-Ds.
> One possible metric for identifying some of these Contributors would be a
> review of the Acknowledgement section many I-Ds include.  I see this
> mentioned in section 3.4; I would shift (or duplicate?) the burden of
> double-checking with Contributors to the WG chairs as WGLC.

Your suggestion of "authors and other Contributors" seems right.

> (4) Section 4.2.  Suggest to include Contributors in the spirit of comment
> (3) above.

Agreed.

> (5) Section A.1.  The email has a logical structure, but sometimes a
> logical structure may not have the best effect.  As written, people will
> probably not read it in its entirety, but will give up once its clear that
> it includes legalese.  Suggest to move the final paragraph "As FOO WG
> chairs" to the top, and put the formal justification stuff at the end.
> 
> (6) Section A.2: I would substitute "Dear FOO WG" with "Dear FOO WG and
> especially authors and Contributors:"
> 
> (7) Section A.2, third paragraph, sentence "We will not be able to advance
> this document to the next stage until we have received a reply from each
> author and listed contributor."  If this sentence starts appearing with
> some consistency in IETF WGs, then we have a de-facto policy change
> (requiring affirmative negative declarations).  Suggest to soften the
> language: "we may not be able to advance" or "it does not appear to be
> sensible to us to advance"
> 
> (8) Section A.2, fourth paragraph: I would express this along the
> following: "you are reminded of your opportunity for a voluntary IPR
> disclosure under BCP79 section xxx.  Unless you want to make such a
> voluntary disclosure, please do not reply."
> 
> (9) Section A.3, see previous comments (7) and (8).
>  
> (10) Section A.4, see previous comment (7)
> 
> (11) Section A.5, see previous comment (7)

Thanks for those suggestions. We'll look at those sample messages again,
but on a first look I think all your points are spot-on.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 01:16:45 -0700

Hi Peter,

I understand why the intended status is not BCP.  I suggest taking 
into account the wider audience feedback to determine whether the it 
should not be made clearer.

A question which is not covered by the draft is when a draft is 
"adopted" through a charter.  I assume that the AD will contact the 
authors in such cases.

In Section 2:

There is a typo, "secretatires".

in Section 3.1:

   "If necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have a
    choice: insist on an informal disclosure in the presentation, or deny
    the agenda slot unless the IPR disclosure is submitted.  One factor
    in this decision could be the number of revisions that have occurred:
    the chairs might wish to permit presentation of a -00 draft with a
    verbal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through multiple
    cycles."

The boilerplate explicitly states that this draft as any other draft 
is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of the usual 
BCPs.  If disclosures are necessary they should be submitted 
especially if the goal of this draft is to promote 
compliance.  Informal disclosures causes uncomfortable situations as 
there are usually valid reasons.  There is also the presumption of 
good faith which makes it a difficult decision.  I don't know how 
often verbal disclosures go on record.  The information may not be 
available to the working group (decisions are taken through the 
mailing list) unless the participants go through the audio.

In A.1:

   "In order to comply with IETF processes while avoiding unnecessary
    delays, document authors and contributors to our discussions in
    the FOO WG are asked to take these messages seriously, and to
    reply in a timely fashion."

Is there any message from WG chairs which should not be taken 
seriously? :-)  I'll suggest:

    In order to comply with IETF processes and avoid unnecessary delays,
    document authors and contributors to our discussions in the FOO WG
    are asked to take pay careful attention to these messages and to
    reply in a timely fashion.

In A.2:

   "We will weigh this information when we judge the consensus on
   the call for adoption."

The wording is not that clear.  It is up to the participants to see 
whether they are ok to work the specification given the IPR 
claims.  Sam Hartman posted some possible responses in such cases ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08992.html 
).  What we were are looking for here is whether there are any 
claims.  The easy path is to remove the sentence and keep the IPR 
question for the follow-up question.

In A.3:

   "The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group
    Last Call.  Before issuing the Last Call, we would like to check"

I suggest "before issuing the Working Group Last Call" as Last Call 
is generally considered as what's in the subject line of this message.

I'll +1 the draft.  Please feel free to ignore the comments to keep 
matters simple.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:01:44 -0600

On 5/23/12 2:16 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I understand why the intended status is not BCP.  I suggest taking into
> account the wider audience feedback to determine whether the it should
> not be made clearer.

OK, Tim and I will look into perhaps adding a sentence or two about this.

> "adopted" through a charter.  I assume that the AD will contact the

Even if a document is mentioned in a charter as a likely starting point,
the chairs still need to make an explicit call for adoption of that
document as a WG item.

> The boilerplate explicitly states that this draft as any other draft is
> submitted in full conformance with the provisions of the usual BCPs.  If
> disclosures are necessary they should be submitted especially if the
> goal of this draft is to promote compliance.  Informal disclosures
> causes uncomfortable situations as there are usually valid reasons. 
> There is also the presumption of good faith which makes it a difficult
> decision.  I don't know how often verbal disclosures go on record. 

The slides and audio are part of the record.

> The
> information may not be available to the working group (decisions are
> taken through the mailing list) unless the participants go through the
> audio.

Naturally it would be best if the disclosure were explicitly called out
in the minutes, as well. However, I agree with you that a formal
disclosure is always best. Let me chat about this with Tim.

> Is there any message from WG chairs which should not be taken seriously?
> :-)  I'll suggest:
> 

WFM.

> whether they are ok to work the specification given the IPR claims.  Sam
> Hartman posted some possible responses in such cases (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08992.html ). 

Yes, I saw that message, and I thought it was helpful.

> What we were are looking for here is whether there are any claims.  The
> easy path is to remove the sentence and keep the IPR question for the
> follow-up question.

Now your wording is not clear to me. What do you mean by "the follow-up
question"?

> I suggest "before issuing the Working Group Last Call" as Last Call is
> generally considered as what's in the subject line of this message.

Good point.

Thanks for the feedback!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:10:18 -0700

Hi Peter,
>the chairs still need to make an explicit call for adoption of that

Ok.

>The slides and audio are part of the record.

The audio seemed like a grey area to me.  I'll keep that discussion 
for another day.

>disclosure is always best. Let me chat about this with Tim.

Ok.

>Now your wording is not clear to me. What do you mean by "the follow-up

The possible steps are:

   1. Reminder checks whether there are claims of IPR that needs
      to be disclosed

   2. Someone mentions a claim

   3. Ask the WG whether they are ok given the new information

   4. consensus call on the technical work

Step 3 is the follow-up question.  I consider it as separate as what 
is being asked of the WG participant is not clear.  Some guidance is 
needed so participants know what they are being asked to do or what 
they can say (see past OAUTH thread as an example).

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:25:16 -0600

On 5/24/12 5:10 PM, SM wrote:
> The audio seemed like a grey area to me.  I'll keep that discussion for
> another day.
> 
> Step 3 is the follow-up question.  I consider it as separate as what is
> being asked of the WG participant is not clear.  Some guidance is needed
> so participants know what they are being asked to do or what they can
> say (see past OAUTH thread as an example).

Got it. Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 19:23:35 -0400

I'd like to challenge the assumption that an explicit call for adoption
is required if work is mentioned in a charter.  Sometimes, if work is
mentioned as a possible starting point, that's true.  However for
working groups like the original XMPP, DKIM, ABFAB and BEEP, where work
was mentioned as a basis/as *the* starting point, the question of
whether to adopt the work happens as part of the chartering process.
I'm not sure that impacts how IPR is handled; in that case I'd expect
the IPR to be confirmed/discussed as part of the chartering process.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:16 -0400

Sam:

I'm seeking clarity.  Are you suggesting that the pre-WG mail list ask this question while drafting the charter, or are you suggesting that the IESG include this question in the call for external review of the charter, or both?

Russ

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:10 -0400

>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <[email-masked]> writes:

    Russ> Sam: I'm seeking clarity.  Are you suggesting that the pre-WG
    Russ> mail list ask this question while drafting the charter, or are
    Russ> you suggesting that the IESG include this question in the call
    Russ> for external review of the charter, or both?

I don't know; I haven't thought in that much detail.  I'm stating as
fact that there are cases where we adopt documents as part of chartering
work; I've been involved in that as a BOF proponent and as an AD.

I believe that it's important to consider the IPR implications then as
with any other adoption.  In the cases I've been aware of there has been
no IPR.  I suspect that if there were IPR that a WG would be much more
likely to consider something as a potential starting point ((not adopted
in the charter process) than as a basis (adopted in the charter
process.)

My personal opinion is that if we're diligent about making sure
disclosures are filed prior to the review of the charter, the rest will
take care of itself.  I don't mind if people want more process than
that, but I don't have strong opinions on what it should be.  I agree
with you that asking on the bof list or asking in external review would
be reasonable ways to approach that.