On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:20 AM 9/16/13, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <droma...@avaya.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I have doubts myself, doubts that I shared with the IESG that this question > is really needed. Asking this question at the end of the process after the > conformance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 was explicitly declared with each version > of the I-D submitted seems redundant. On the other hand, I believe there have been cases in which asking this question resulted in disclosures that might not otherwise have been posted. Redundancy in this case doesn't seem particularly costly or otherwise onerous and, in my opinion, has proved valuable in the past. - Ralph > It is probably intended to cover some corner cases where contributors forgot > particular disclosures, or disclosures happened after the last I-D revision > was submitted, or some of the authors on the authors list were not involved > directly in the latest submitted revisions of the I-D. As WG chair however, > as long as the question is formulated under its current format in the > shepherd write-up form, I feel that I cannot responsibly answer to it without > asking the authors. > > To quote Gonzalo: Responding with a "yes, per the draft's boilerplate" should > take only a few seconds > > Regards, > > Dan > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:04 PM >> To: Glen Zorn >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Qin Wu; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr- >> qoe....@tools.ietf.org; Shida Schubert; rai-...@tools.ietf.org; The >> IESG; ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe >> >> Hi Glen, >> >> as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder. In >> the past, it has happened that even long-time IETF participants with a >> lot of experience had forgotten about a particular disclosure until they >> received the reminder. >> >> Responding with a "yes, per the draft's boilerplate" should take only a >> few seconds of your time. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 16/09/2013 2:35 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: >>> On 09/15/2013 11:06 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Qin is correct. Glen's way of responding does not help. >>> >>> Apparently there is no way that would be helpful (see below). >>> >>>> >>>> The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we are >>>> required to answer the following question which is part of the >>>> Shepherd write-up as per the instructions from the IESG >>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt: >>>> >>>>> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR >>>> >>>> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP >>>> 78 >>>> >>>> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. >>>> >>>> We have no choice but to relay the question to the authors. >>> >>> I see, just following orders. >>> >>>> >>>> Glen, if you believe that this question should not be part of the >>>> write-up, I think that you should take the issue with the IESG. >>> >>> I have, and am continuing to do so (see the CC list). >>> >>>> >>>> In the current situation, unless I receive different instructions >>>> from the ADs, I have no choice but to send this document to the IESG >>>> mentioning that I did not receive an explicit confirmation. >>>> >>> >>> Really? I have no idea, really, how to respond to that statement but >>> I'll try anyway. The explicit statement of conformance to both BCP 78 >>> and BCP 79 were clearly contained in each and every revision of the >>> draft; of course, I know that you are a busy person, and the IESG is >>> even busier, so you can't be expected to read every draft posted. I >>> spent my time emailing the pertinent sections of >>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 through >>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09 to ensure that you were aware that I >>> and my co-authors had explicitly stated that the drafts in question >>> conformed to the relevant BCPs in every case. As I'm quite certain >>> that you can read, I believe that you _are_ aware of that, so how to >>> understand your statement that "I have no choice but to send this >>> document to the IESG mentioning that I did not receive an explicit >>> confirmation"? It looks like I have no choice but to believe that you >>> (and the IESG) think that we are liars who will confess only under >>> direct questioning, like 8-year-old children suspected of some prank. >>> This isn't merely obnoxious, it's insulting and highly offensive. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill...@huawei.com] >>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:45 AM >>>>> To: Glen Zorn >>>>> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr- >>>>> qoe....@tools.ietf.org >>>>> Subject: RE: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe >>>>> >>>>> Hi,Glen: >>>>> Would you like to not bother IESG to make confirmation? >>>>> I am a little confused with what you sent. >>>>> What's wrong with the IETF IPR policy? >>>>> Your blame on this doesn't help solve the problem. >>>>> >>>>> Regards! >>>>> -Qin >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:g...@net-zen.net] >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:51 PM >>>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe....@tools.ietf.org; >>>>> g...@net-zen.net; The IESG >>>>> Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe >>>>> >>>>> On 08/21/2013 09:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear authors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures >>>>>> required >>>>> for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 for >>>>> this document have already been filed. The confirmation from each of >>>>> you is necessary in order to progress the document towards IESG >> approval. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> RTCP XR Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting >>>>> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract >>>>> >>>>> This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block and associated >> SDP >>>>> parameters that allow the reporting of QoE metrics for use in a >>>>> range >>>>> of RTP applications. >>>>> >>>>> Status of this Memo >>>>> >>>>> This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the >>>>> provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
