Subject: Re:

From: Robin Cover <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:55:09 -0400 (EDT)

A question about IETF process:

On September 3, 2004 Andrew Newton wrote to the members of the
IETF MARID WG via the 'ietf-mxcomp' list, on behalf of the
WG co-chairs (Marshall T. Rose, Andrew Newton)

   "... We ask that all participants respond to these
    messages without regard to the IPR issue now before
    the working group..." [1]

Question:

Are IETF WG chairs empowered under IETF rules to require that
a technical proposal/issue be [considered and] responded to "without
regard" to IPR concerns that WG members might have, viz.,
with regard to a particular IPR declaration and/or with regard
to IPR concerns in general?

It is not clear whether the language "We ask" might be (A) a
polite request or recommendation, or whether it could also
be (B) an instruction based upon the authority of the chair to
so restrict contributed responses on the WG list, backed by
sanctions.  [IEEE has the latter, as I understand its WG rules.]

Thanks,
Robin Cover

[1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04201.html

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:03:35 -0700

To clarify further, the chairs have asked the working group to
respond to a specific set of consensus calls on technical matters
related to a specification in an extended working group last
call.  They have _not_ asked the working group not to consider
IPR issues as a whole; there is a lively discussion of that within
the working group.  This is a tool to make it easier to pull
the threads of conversation apart, and it is sorely needed in
a working group as active as MARID.  They have similarly
asked folks to preface email messages in the working group
last call with topic prefixes like: DEPLOY, TECH-OMISSION,
and DOC-BUG.

As the AD for this group, I was informed in advance of their
intention to use these tools to focus discussion, and I agree
that they are needed.  I do not believe that they in any way
have prevented folks from discussing the IPR issue; they are
simply ways to keep conversational flow on technical topics
going.
		regards,
			Ted Hardie
			co-Area Director, Applications