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

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:52:20 +0000

Hi,
I want to thank Peter and Tim to take my comments into account in version
4 of this document.  I'm happy with version this version.
Regards,
Stephan

On 4.30.2012 19:19 , "Stephan Wenger" <[email-masked]> 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.
>
>(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.
>
>(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.
>
>(4) Section 4.2.  Suggest to include Contributors in the spirit of comment
>(3) above.
>
>(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)
>
> 
>
>On 4.30.2012 18:27 , "The IESG" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>>the following document:
>>- 'Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
>>   Disclosure Rules'
>>  <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> as Informational RFC
>>
>>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-05-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
>>beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>>Abstract
>>
>>
>>   The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in
>>   documents produced within the IETF stream is essential to the
>>   accurate development of community consensus.  However, this process
>>   is not always followed by participants during IETF standardization.
>>   Regardless of the cause or motivation, noncompliance with IPR
>>   disclosure rules can derail or delay completion of standards
>>   documents.  This document describes strategies for promoting
>>   compliance with the IPR disclosure rules.  The strategies are
>>   primarily intended for area directors, working group chairs, and
>>   working group secretaries.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The file can be obtained via
>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure/
>>
>>IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure/ballot/
>>
>>
>>No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>>
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:13:54 -0600

On 4/30/12 10:27 AM, The IESG wrote:
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-05-28. 

Tim and I received actionable feedback on this list from Stephan Wenger
and Subramanian Moonesamy during the Last Call [1] [2], and Stephan has
publicly verified that his concerns were addressed [3] (SM contacted me
offlist to the same effect). A full diff is at [4], but in brief the
main changes were as follows:

1. Tightened some terminology (e.g., changed "limitations" to "licensing
requirements" and, in several places, "IETF participants" to "IETF
contributors" and "authors" to "authors and listed contributors") and
explicitly defined the terms "formal disclosure" and "informal disclosure".

2. Clarified that this document does *not* define best current practices
but instead suggests some strategies that ADs, WG chairs, and WG
secretaries might want to use.

3. Mentioned that, if informal disclosure is allowed in a meeting,
chairs ought to capture such statements in the meeting minutes.

4. Removed a misleading statement that silence could be interpreted as
as a weak "no".

5. Removed any suggestion that non-receipt of IPR disclosures could be
interpreted by ADs or WG chairs as necessarily blocking any advancement
of an I-D.

6. Tweaked the sample email messages to improve their readability and
better align with the body of the document.

Peter

[1]
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=63103&tid=1339642625

[2]
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=63414&tid=1339642383

[3]
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=63596&tid=1339642383

[4] http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-04.txt