Subject: Re: FW: <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06.txt>

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:07:46 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Sect 5 tells people that RFC-Editor will add text for the required
> > IPR statements for stds track RFCs.
> > 
> > I contend that it is is much better to have authors/editors add that
> > text in their Internt-Drafts, so that it gets seen during WG and 
> > IETF Last Calls, so that whoever believes that he/she needs to 
> > comment is clearly pointed out that they need to think about it.
> 
> I strongly agree with this.
> 
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Scott Bradner wrote:
> > >[Bert Wijnen wrote:]
> > > > And as far as I know, the CURRENT policy and procedure is that the
> > > > editors authors MUST include the IPR text in the I-D that they submit
> > > > for stds track consideration.
> > >
> > > 2026 says the IPR notices need to be there in the RFC, it does
> > > not say how they should get there
> >
> > The IESG could enforce this provision by enforcing the ID-nits
> > requirements. It's in there.
> 
> And I think that this is the right thing to do.  I might add that
> it's one of the standard checklist items in reviews of MIB documents
> (see Appendix A of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt>).

Since the "RFC Editor will add ..." wording has been left unchanged
in <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-08.txt>, I would like to
propose the following change to Page 8, Section 5 ("Notice to be
included in RFCs"), first paragraph:

CURRENT TEXT:
   The following notice will be added by the RFC Editor to all standards
   track RFCs and to all other RFCs for which an IPR disclosure has been
   received.

NEW TEXT:
   The RFC Editor will ensure that the following notice is present in
   all standards track RFCs and all other RFCs for which an IPR
   disclosure has been received.

In other words, the RFC Editor will add the notice if it's not
already there.  What I find objectionable about the current text is
that it suggests that these sections don't need to be in
Internet-Drafts, but the current policy (which is consistent with
RFC 2026 and which the technology rights document isn't supposed to
alter) is that IPR notices _are_ supposed to be included in
Internet-Drafts (see in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html Section
1.2, "Required sections - all IDs").  Note that this policy has been
enforced in MIB doctor reviews for some time (certainly since 1998,
when I started doing MIB reviews), and the practice is documented in
Section 3.4 of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt>.

> I would also recommend (as I stated in my last call comments on
> <draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt>) that the instructions to RFC
> authors explicitly call out a separate IPR section (both in the body
> of the text and in the checklist) and note that it is required for
> standards-track documents.

<draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-05.txt> just came out yesterday, and
it says nothing about IPR sections although it has an uncited
normative reference to draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights.  Presumably
the RFC Editor is waiting for the smoke to clear ...

//cmh

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:15:26 -0400 (EDT)

seems reasonable

---