Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
John, Brian Most standards organizations require that participants who have, or whose company has, IPR relevant to a potential standard, disclose this at an early stage and at least prior to publication. The participants in the IETF are individuals however RFC3979 addresses this by stating that any individual participating in an IETF discussion must make a disclosure if they are aware of IPR from themselves, their employer or sponsor, that could be asserted against an implementation of a contribution. The question this raises is - what does participation in a discussion mean? This has been interpreted by courts to mean members of a standards body, people that are subscribed to the email list of the standards body and more broadly, people that would have known that a standard was being developed. Asking the participants in an IETF WG (and not just authors) to disclose any IPR they are aware of that may impact a draft is simply implementing the policy outlined in RFC3979. Personally I'd like to see a broader requirement that IETF participants are asked to request that their company or sponsor perform a quick search of their own patents to see if there is any relevant IPR. Unfortunately, while standards organizations define their patent policies, the interpretation of these is often done in the legal system in the context of a patent infringement case. While we don't like this - it is the world we live in, and we should make sure that the IETF patent policy is implemented in a way that reduces the likelihood of litigation against someone that implements a draft/ RFC/ standard. Regards Alan Clark On 9/18/13 4:23 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Thursday, September 19, 2013 07:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote: ... It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY for the authors of a draft, and the IETF reminder system seems to be focused solely on authors. The duty to disclose IPR lies with any individual or company that participates in the IETF not just authors. Companies don't participate in the IETF; the duty of disclosure is specifically placed on individual contributors and applies to patents reasonably and personally known to them. IANAL but I did read the BCP. Brian, That isn't how I interpreted Alan's point. My version would be that, if the shepherd template writeup says make sure that the authors are up-to-date (or anything equivalent) it should also say ask/remind the WG participants too. IMO, that is a perfectly reasonable and orderly suggestion (and no lawyer is required to figure it out). One inference from Glen's point that authors have already certified that they have provided anything they need to provide by the time an I-D is posted with the full compliance language is that it may actually be more important to remind general participants in the WG than to ask the authors. john
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote: ... It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY for the authors of a draft, and the IETF reminder system seems to be focused solely on authors. The duty to disclose IPR lies with any individual or company that participates in the IETF not just authors. Companies don't participate in the IETF; the duty of disclosure is specifically placed on individual contributors and applies to patents reasonably and personally known to them. IANAL but I did read the BCP. Brian
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
On 09/16/2013 08:03 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: Hi Glen, as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder. No, it's not. It is a roadblock. If it was just a reminder. I would be free to ignore it, in the same way that I ignore a reminder from my calendar about a meeting in which I'm is already sitting. 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. I believe that. I'm sure that there is at least one person in the world who has been granted so many patents that they have just lost track. OTOH, if they put their name on a draft and submitted it, they stated that the draft was full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This is a strong statement, but if you affirm it without knowing that it's true, you are lying. Responding with a yes, per the draft's boilerplate should take only a few seconds of your time. So I guess that makes it OK to call us liars, since only takes a few seconds of our time to deny it. Just one question, though: if you refused to believe it the first 11 times the statement was made, why would you believe it the 12th? ...
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
--On Thursday, September 19, 2013 07:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote: ... It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY for the authors of a draft, and the IETF reminder system seems to be focused solely on authors. The duty to disclose IPR lies with any individual or company that participates in the IETF not just authors. Companies don't participate in the IETF; the duty of disclosure is specifically placed on individual contributors and applies to patents reasonably and personally known to them. IANAL but I did read the BCP. Brian, That isn't how I interpreted Alan's point. My version would be that, if the shepherd template writeup says make sure that the authors are up-to-date (or anything equivalent) it should also say ask/remind the WG participants too. IMO, that is a perfectly reasonable and orderly suggestion (and no lawyer is required to figure it out). One inference from Glen's point that authors have already certified that they have provided anything they need to provide by the time an I-D is posted with the full compliance language is that it may actually be more important to remind general participants in the WG than to ask the authors. john
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 17:22 -0400 Alan Clark alan.d.cl...@telchemy.com wrote: John, Brian Most standards organizations require that participants who have, or whose company has, IPR relevant to a potential standard, disclose this at an early stage and at least prior to publication. The participants in the IETF are individuals however RFC3979 addresses this by stating that any individual participating in an IETF discussion must make a disclosure if they are aware of IPR from themselves, their employer or sponsor, that could be asserted against an implementation of a contribution. The question this raises is - what does participation in a ... Alan, Variations on these themes and options have been discussed multiple times. Of course, circumstances change and it might be worth reviewing them again, especially if you have new information. However, may I strongly suggest that you take the question to the ipg-wg mailing list. Most or all of the people who are significantly interested in this topic, including those who are most responsible for the current rules and conventions, are on that list. Your raising it there would permit a more focused and educated discussion than you are likely to find on the main IETF list. Subscription and other information is at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg best, john
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
From 29 years experience in ATIS, CCITT, CEPT, ETSI, IETF, ITU, TIA and other standards organizations and extensive experience with standards that do have associated IPR it is apparent that asking for confirmation at multiple points in the standards development process IS necessary. For example: (a) The ITU requires that IPR holders make statements prior to the publication of a standard. A top 5 telecom equipment provider submitted a proposal to add an a new capability to an existing (IPR free) standard and did NOT state that they had IPR related to this - in fact the inventor on their patent was the person who wrote and submitted the contribution. Some years after the standard was published, when their patent was granted, they started writing to implementers to demand that they take out a license. Intentional abuse of the standards development process DOES happen. (b) We often hear from large organizations that, as they have thousands of patents, they can't possibly know whether they have patents related to a standard or not. Repeatedly asking questions about IPR disclosure IS important as it does make it harder for IPR holders to claim that they did not know. It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY for the authors of a draft, and the IETF reminder system seems to be focused solely on authors. The duty to disclose IPR lies with any individual or company that participates in the IETF not just authors. Alan Clark On 9/16/13 1:00 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Monday, September 16, 2013 19:35 +0700 Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote: ... 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. For whatever it is worth, I think there is a rather different problem here. I also believe it is easily solved and that, if it is not, we have a far deeper problem. I believe the document writeup that the IESG posts at a given time is simply a way of identifying the information the IESG wants (or wants to be reassured about) and a template for a convenient way to supply that information. If that were not the case: (i) We would expect RFC 4858 to be a BCP, not an Informational document. (ii) The writeup template would need to represent community consensus after IETF LC, not be something the IESG put together and revises from time to time. (iii) The various experiments in alternative template formats and shepherding theories would be improper or invalid without community consensus, probably expressed through formal process experiment authorizations of the RFC 3933 species. The first sentence of the writeup template, As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template... is technically invalid because RFC 4858, as an Informational document, cannot _require_ anything of the standards process. Fortunately, it does not say you are required to supply this information in this form or you are required to ask precisely these questions, which would be far worse. From my point of view, an entirely reasonable response to the comments above that start As WG chairs we are required to answer the following question... and We have no choice but to relay... is that you are required to do no such thing. The writeup template is guidance to the shepherd about information and assurances the IESG wants to have readily available during the review process, nothing more. I also believe that any AD who has become sufficiently impressed by his [1] power and the authority of IETF-created procedures to insist on a WG chair's asking a question and getting an answer in some particular form has been on the IESG, or otherwise in the leadership much too long [2]. In fairness to the IESG, Has each author confirmed... doesn't require that the document shepherd or WG Chair ask the question in any particular way. Especially if I knew that some authors might be uncomfortable being, in Glen's words, treated as 8-year-old children, I think I would ask the question in a form similar to since the I-Ds in which you were involved were posted, have you had any thoughts or encountered any information that would require filing of additional IPR disclosures?. That question is a reminder that might be (and occasionally has been) useful. A negative answer to it would be fully as much confirming that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures... have been filed as one whose implications are closer to were you telling the truth when you posted that I-D. I think Glen's
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
RE: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
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. 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
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
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
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
On 09/16/2013 02:20 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: 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. It is redundant. Deliberately so though, since as stated earlier we have seen cases where it did result in IPR declarations being made by long-time IETFers who'd forgotten old filings. In at least one such case we had to re-do an IETF LC, but it all did work out to the satisfaction of the wg in the end. From memory, I think we've seen about 3 IPR disclosures because of this question in the last year. So its not solving a huge problem, but it does catch a few things that'd be missed otherwise. 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. As shepherd, you do have the option of saying I didn't ask Glen because I know it really annoys him and I know what his answer will be or I asked the authors, and all's well but Glen didn't respond but we know the question annoys him. To quote Gonzalo: Responding with a yes, per the draft's boilerplate should take only a few seconds Yeah, I agree. But its inevitable that a redundant bit of process stuff like this irritates someone, so we should all (incl. irritated parties:-) live with that and not make a deal of it. And lastly a question for Glen: Say a co-author of yours was prompted by this question to make a late IPR disclosure. While that's a low probability event, (about a 1% chance or so maybe), would that be better or worse than the disclosure not happening or happening after the draft had gone further in the process? If it'd be better then I don't get why you think its a problem that we double-check. (Or is there a better way to double-check that would not be as annoying?) If it'd be worse, (i.e. better to not know) then I don't get that. FWIW, much as I think most of the IPR we have to deal with is nonsense, I still think its better for us to double-check and get the IPR disclosures when we can easily do another IETF-LC. S.
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
It seems to me that it would be good practice (for someone?) to invite or remind authors of RFCs of the requirements of BCP 78 and 79 ... but maybe not use the words the email as below describing confirmation as necessary in order to progress the document 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. The text at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. contains this text (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 That text is a little different than the template saying confirmation is necessary I don’t see applicable text in RFC 4858 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858 Seems to me that authors may not really know whether any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed and to ask them to confirm that this is the case asks authors to do something they really are not able to do without taking on some possible liability for such a confirmation. Authors may have personal knowledge and belief but to ask them to confirm something is more than that my two cents George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President GTW Associates -Original Message- From: Gonzalo Camarillo Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:03 AM To: Glen Zorn Cc: rai-...@tools.ietf.org ; ietf@ietf.org ; Shida Schubert ; Romascanu,Dan (Dan) ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe@tools.ietf.org ; Qin Wu 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
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
can we try to keep life simple? it is prudent to check what (new) ipr exists for a draft at the point where the iesg is gonna start the sausage machine to get it to rfc. if the iesg did not do this, we would rightly worry that we were open to a submarine job. this has happened, which is why this formality is in place. if some subset of the authors prefer to play cute, my alarms go off. stuff the draft until they can give a simple direct answer. randy
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 07:14 -1000 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: can we try to keep life simple? it is prudent to check what (new) ipr exists for a draft at the point where the iesg is gonna start the sausage machine to get it to rfc. if the iesg did not do this, we would rightly worry that we were open to a submarine job. this has happened, which is why this formality is in place. Agreed. I hope there are only two issues in this discussion: (1) Whether the IESG requires that the question be asked in some particular form, especially a form that would apply to other-than-new IPR. I think the answer to that question is clearly no. (2) Whether the submitted in full conformance... statement in I-Ds is sufficient to cover IPR up to the point of posting of the I-D. If the answer is no, then there is a question of why we are wasting the bits. If it is yes, as I assume it is, then any pre-sausage questions can and should be limited to IPR that might be new to one or more of the authors. if some subset of the authors prefer to play cute, my alarms go off. stuff the draft until they can give a simple direct answer. Agreed. While I wouldn't make as big an issue of it as he has (personal taste), I agree with him that asking an author to affirm that he or she really, really meant it and told the truth when posting a draft submitted in full conformance... is inappropriate and demeaning. While I think there might have been other, more desirable, ways to pursue it, I don't think that raising the issue falls entirely into the cute range. john
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes: John It seems to me that, in this particular case, too many people John are assuming a far more rigid process than actually exists or John can be justified by any IETF consensus procedure. Let's just John stop that. I agree with John here. However, I'll remind others (John is certainly aware) that an chairs serve at the pleasure of the AD. I'd be unimpressed with an AD who removed chairs because they supplied information in a reasonable but different form. I'd thik it entirely reasonable for an AD to remove chairs because the chairs didn't supply information the AD reasonably requested to move documents forward. Part of not having rigid process is allowing chairs to be flexible but also allowing ADs to be flexible about what chairs they want to work with.
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
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
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
--On Monday, September 16, 2013 19:35 +0700 Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote: ... 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. For whatever it is worth, I think there is a rather different problem here. I also believe it is easily solved and that, if it is not, we have a far deeper problem. I believe the document writeup that the IESG posts at a given time is simply a way of identifying the information the IESG wants (or wants to be reassured about) and a template for a convenient way to supply that information. If that were not the case: (i) We would expect RFC 4858 to be a BCP, not an Informational document. (ii) The writeup template would need to represent community consensus after IETF LC, not be something the IESG put together and revises from time to time. (iii) The various experiments in alternative template formats and shepherding theories would be improper or invalid without community consensus, probably expressed through formal process experiment authorizations of the RFC 3933 species. The first sentence of the writeup template, As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template... is technically invalid because RFC 4858, as an Informational document, cannot _require_ anything of the standards process. Fortunately, it does not say you are required to supply this information in this form or you are required to ask precisely these questions, which would be far worse. From my point of view, an entirely reasonable response to the comments above that start As WG chairs we are required to answer the following question... and We have no choice but to relay... is that you are required to do no such thing. The writeup template is guidance to the shepherd about information and assurances the IESG wants to have readily available during the review process, nothing more. I also believe that any AD who has become sufficiently impressed by his [1] power and the authority of IETF-created procedures to insist on a WG chair's asking a question and getting an answer in some particular form has been on the IESG, or otherwise in the leadership much too long [2]. In fairness to the IESG, Has each author confirmed... doesn't require that the document shepherd or WG Chair ask the question in any particular way. Especially if I knew that some authors might be uncomfortable being, in Glen's words, treated as 8-year-old children, I think I would ask the question in a form similar to since the I-Ds in which you were involved were posted, have you had any thoughts or encountered any information that would require filing of additional IPR disclosures?. That question is a reminder that might be (and occasionally has been) useful. A negative answer to it would be fully as much confirming that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures... have been filed as one whose implications are closer to were you telling the truth when you posted that I-D. I think Glen's objections to the latter are entirely reasonable, but there is no need to go there. Finally, I think a pre-LC reminder is entirely appropriate, especially for revised documents or older ones for which some of the listed authors may no longer be active. I assume, or at least hope, that concern is were this item in the writeup template came from. Especially for authors who fall into those categories, asking whether they have been paying attention and have kept IPR disclosures up to date with the evolving document is, IMO, both reasonable and appropriate. Personally, I'm inclined to ask for an affirmative commitment about willingness to participate actively in the AUTH48 signoff process at the same time -- non-response to that one, IMO, justifies trimming the author count and creating a Contributors section. It seems to me that, in this particular case, too many people are assuming a far more rigid process than actually exists or can be justified by any IETF consensus procedure. Let's just stop that. best, john [1] pronoun chosen to reflect current IESG composition and with the understanding that it might be part of the problem. [2] Any WG with strong consensus about these issues and at least 20 active, nomcom-eligible participants knows what to do about such a problem should it ever occur. Right?
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
On Sep 16, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: This is a claim in the boilerplate which the IETF, not the authors, are making. I am sure flames are already directed my way for being imprecise here, but what I mean is that although the authors put this boilerplate in the document, the IETF, through the document publication process, effectively affirms that the authors have made this claim, so it's entirely reasonable for us to double-check that all of the authors of a document know they are making this claim, and that it isn't something that one author put in without asking the others about it, and that all the authors actually understand what the boilerplate says.
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
Ralph, Will you be in Vancouver? I'd like to get some time to talk about IPSO and also my new project for the White House - SmartUSA Challenge. I plan to be there if I can get approval for foreign travel. Geoff Mulligan Presidential Innovation Fellow Cyber-Physical Systems SmartUSA Challenge
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
On Sep 16, 2013, at 1:37 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: (2) Whether the submitted in full conformance... statement in I-Ds is sufficient to cover IPR up to the point of posting of the I-D. If the answer is no, then there is a question of why we are wasting the bits. If it is yes, as I assume it is, then any pre-sausage questions can and should be limited to IPR that might be new to one or more of the authors. This is a claim in the boilerplate which the IETF, not the authors, are making. So asking the question is entirely appropriate; the authors' answers need to be known to the IESG prior to publication, and the fact that the boilerplate says what it says does not mean that the authors' answers are known. This isn't an insult to the authors—it's simply a practicality: evidence suggests that not all authors at all times are aware of what the boilerplate actually means, and this isn't surprising since it's added by the tool, not typed in each time by each author. So whether this counts as a requirement or not I don't know, but on a practical level, asking the question saves time and reduces ambiguity; it's hard to see that as a negative, and it's astonishing that a long-time IETF participant could conceive it to be a deliberate offense.
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
On 17/09/2013 08:10, Ted Lemon wrote: On Sep 16, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: This is a claim in the boilerplate which the IETF, not the authors, are making. I am sure flames are already directed my way for being imprecise here, but what I mean is that although the authors put this boilerplate in the document, the IETF, through the document publication process, effectively affirms that the authors have made this claim, so it's entirely reasonable for us to double-check that all of the authors of a document know they are making this claim, and that it isn't something that one author put in without asking the others about it, and that all the authors actually understand what the boilerplate says. Yes. And as an author, I have never been offended by being asked, for recent RFCs, if I had in fact done what the BCPs specify, which is to disclose (or arrange to be disclosed) IPR of which I was reasonably and personally aware. I believe this question was added to the procedure after one or two cases where authors had not done so. Brian
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
(off-list) John C Klensin wrote: The first sentence of the writeup template, As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template... is technically invalid because RFC 4858, as an Informational document, cannot _require_ anything of the standards process. I'm OK with asserting that an Informational document does not (necessarily) represent community consensus, and therefore can not mandate changes on stuff which _has_ community consensus (be it processes or protocol standards). This might also be the reason why we have to be careful to limit downward references, i.e. having normative references to Informational documents in standards track documents/specifications. But I consider your original choice of words misleading. We do allow re-publication of documents developed elsewhere as informational RFCs, and when such documents are technical specifications, they usually contain conformance requirements (for conformance to that particular specification), and use rfc2119 keywords. Sometimes with an explicit pointer rfc2119, sometimes without. Neither the use of rfc2119 keywords for conformance, nor the pointer to rfc2119 for explaining the meanung of the keywords, by themselves, make any document an IETF standard. Only IETF consensus and IESG standards action does that. -Martin
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. Thanks and Regards, Dan
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, Network Working Group A. Clark Internet-Draft Telchemy Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu Expires: November 28, 2013Huawei R. Schott Deutsche Telekom G. Zorn Network Zen May 27, 2013 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-08 Abstract This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block including two new segment types 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. 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. Thanks and Regards, Dan
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. Network Working GroupG. Hunt Internet-Draft Unaffiliated Intended status: Standards TrackA. Clark Expires: November 15, 2012 Telchemy Q. Wu Huawei R. Schott DT G. Zorn Network Zen May 14, 2012 RTCP XR Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-01 Abstract This document defines an RTCP XR Report Block including two new segment types 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
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, Network Working Group A. Clark Internet-Draft Telchemy Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu Expires: August 29, 2013 Huawei R. Schott Deutsche Telekom G. Zorn Network Zen February 25, 2013 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-06 Abstract This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block including two new segment types 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. 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. Thanks and Regards, Dan
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. Network Working Group A. Clark Internet-Draft Telchemy Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu Expires: April 21, 2013 Huawei R. Schott DT G. Zorn Network Zen October 18, 2012 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Blocks for QoE Metric Reporting draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-03 Abstract This document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block including two new segment types 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
