Hi Barry, I read your response and it is OK as long as the Shephard has to respond to question 8 and inform what happened in the WG. My reading of question 7 is that the document shepherd have to ask the authors to confirm the IPR status to their knowledge which is different than just reporting what was discussed in the WG and which IP statements were submitted. Did I mis-understand question 7. This is why I was trying to draft the question to ask the documents authors in order to be able to reply to question 7. I was not trying to change the proto itself. Thanks Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Barry Leiba > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:43 PM > To: Stephan Wenger > Cc: ipr@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; IETF > Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up > > [I am removing the avt and payload WG lists from this, so they can keep > at their work; feel free to direct people from those lists to the IETF > discussion list. And thanks for moving this to the right lists.] > > Hi, Stephan. > I think we're mostly in agreement, then, judging from what you say. > The gap may be a misunderstanding of what the PROTO writeup is for; it > has two purposes: > > 1. To provide information to the IESG, which might be important for the > IESG to consider as it reviews the document. > > 2. To make sure the document shepherd (usually, but not always, one of > the working group chairs) has reviewed and considered certain things. > > That means that the writeup is NOT meant to set or enforce policy, and > there aren't any "right" or "wrong" answers, except that "Oh, gee, I > never thought about that," is probably never right, and the response to > it should be to go think about it. > > Note in particular that BCPs 78 & 79 and Note Well have legal blessing, > the PROTO template does not, and the writeup is not there to be a legal > document. > > For reference, the writeup templates live here: > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/ (see the links at the bottom of the right- > hand column). The two questions we're talking about are these: > > (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. > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. > > ...and there was discussion of the wording of those questions within > the IESG and with the WG chairs before finalizing it. For the record, > not all the chairs liked the wording that's there. > > What the IESG wants in response to these questions is not just "Yes" > or "No", but (where appropriate) an explanation of what IPR-related > things happened with respect to the document the writeup is for. If > there are no IPR issues, the writeup should say that: "There are no > known IPR issues with this document, and the shepherd has re-confirmed > that with the editors and the working group," or some such. > > But t also could say something like this: "Shortly after the document > was adopted by the working group, participant Herkermer Biffelwogg said > that he was aware of some IPR that might cover the document. The > working group decided to continue working on the document, no IPR > disclosure was ever filed, and Mr Biffelwogg says he has no further > information about any IPR claims." Or perhaps this: "The Frobozz Magic > AVT Company filed an IPR disclosure on the -06 version of the > document." Concerned about the timing of the disclosure, the working > group fought bitterly for a few weeks about it, but ultimately came to > rough consensus to accept the Frobozz terms and continue. The > discussion resulted in some changes to the language in the draft, and a > few participants remain unhappy with the result. No one has said they > intend to appeal the decision." > > See what I'm getting at? Information for the IESG, and making sure > that the shepherd is on top of things. No policy changes, subtle or > blatant. And that's true in general with the PROTO writeup. There are > many places where a yes/no answer could instead be done as an > explanation that really gives us an idea of what happened and how the > working group came to the result that it did. That information can > really help when the IESG members do their reviews, and perhaps have > similar questions that were long ago answered. > > Barry > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 14:09, Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Barry, > > > > Adding the IPRWG and ietf@ietf. > > > > For the benefit if "new" readers: This is about an updated proto > > shepherd writeup template, asking two questions about IPR that, IMO > > may not be in compliance with the IETF's IPR policy. > > > > I was not aware that the proto template had IESG blessing. Still, I > > believe that the template text does not ask the right question, or, > > more specifically, is a suggestive question in that it appears (at > > least to me) to interpret the IETF's patent policy in a considerably > > more strict way than it is set out in the policy RFCs. > > I believe the IESG should reconsider the proto writeup. > > A few more comments inline > > > > On 3.21.2012 17:03 , "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> Thanks for the text, I will use it. > >>> > >>> Roni > >> > >>I recommend you do not, for a few reasons: > >> > >>1. You may not rewrite the PROTO template; that belongs to the IESG. > > > > Agreed (now that I'm aware of that this is an IESG-sanctioned > template). > > > >>2. The question was worded as it is for a reason, and it should be > >>left that way. The IESG wants to know whether there are any known > IPR > >>claims, whether declarations have been made to and considered by the > >>working group, and whether formal IPR statements have been filed in > >>the system. The middle one is as important as the last. > > > > Also agreed (with caveats, see below). > > > >> > >>3. Stephan is incorrect when he says this: > >>> The reason is that disclosure is not required in many cases; for > >>>example, when the IPR in question is not owned by them or their > >>>employers. > >> > >>If you are aware of IPR that you do not own, you may and you should > >>make a third-party disclosure. > > > > Barry, please read my language carefully. Perhaps I should have > > capitalized REQUIRED, but the text is clear and inline with yours. > > It's MAY and SHOULD for third party disclosures. But you are NOT > > *required* to do so by policy; there is no MUST. There are many good > > and valid reasons why there is no MUST (beyond that it's not in the > > policy docs). And, third party disclosures are not even a widely > used > > current practice. Just look at the (comparatively low) number of > third party disclosures. > > > > Look, I do patent work as my day job. I also do standards work In > my > > current and previous job roles, I have looked at hundreds of patents > > of my current or previous employers, as well as occasionally at third > > party patents. Now, with this background, let's look at the template > > text again (numerals by me): > > > > (1) Are you aware of any IPR that applies to <insert document > name>? > > (2) If so, > > has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see > > RFCs 3979, > > 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > > > > > > For the majority of the documents I am working on, the answer to > > question > > (1) would be yes. The answer to question (2) would be quite often > no. > > > > Based on my interpretation of the policy RFCs, I am in full > compliance > > with language and spirit of the policy. I'm not doing anything > fishy. > > I just don't talk about third party IPR, which is my right under the > > IETF's IPR policy. However, by providing answers to questions (1) > and > > (2), the IESG would receive a signal that it is not entitled to > > receive (more > > precisely: that I'm not required to send, and not willing to send > > voluntarily, as it could get me personally into trouble), namely that > > there may be patents related to a document which the discloser is not > > willing, AND not obligated, to talk about. > > > > This is a policy change through the backdoor. Policy changes through > > the backdoor are bad. > > > > My suggestion was aimed to bring the template in compliance with what > > I believe is language and spirit of the policy. > > > > Thanks, > > Stephan > > > > > > > >> > >>You may, of course, ask the question of your working group in any way > >>you like. But I suggest you ask it in a way that allows you to > >>accurately answer the question asked in the PROTO template. > >> > >>Barry, incoming Applications AD > >> > >>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>> From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:stewe@xxxxxxxxx] > >>> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:03 PM > >>> To: Roni Even; 'IETF AVTCore WG'; payload@xxxxxxxx > >>> Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund' > >>> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] (no subject) > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> There are many cases, where the answer to the first question is > Yes, > >>>the answer to the second question is No, and people would still be > >>>in compliance with the assorted policy RFCs. The reason is that > >>>disclosure is not required in many cases; for example, when the IPR > >>>in question is not owned by them or their employers. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Suggest that the second question should be something like: > >>> > >>> " > >>> > >>> If so, > >>> > >>> has this IPR been disclosed when so required for in compliance with > >>> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs > >>> > >>> 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > >>> > >>> " > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Stephan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:33:53 +0200 > >>> To: 'IETF AVTCore WG' <avt@xxxxxxxx>, <payload@xxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Subject: [AVTCORE] (no subject) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The document write-up template for sending documents to publication > >>>has changed. In particular, we need to poll authors on their > >>>compliance with IETF IPR rules prior to moving a document to the > >>>publication in the WG process. See > >>>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html > >>>question 7. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We plan to send the following email when a WG document goes to WG > >>> last call. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please let us know if you have any comments on this plan. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Roni Even > >>> > >>> AVTCore and Payload co-chair > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> To: <list all authors and contributors> > >>> > >>> Cc: AD; AVTcore/Payload WG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Subject: Regarding IPR on <insert document name> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to <insert document name>? If > >>> so, > >>> > >>> has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see > >>> RFCs > >>> > >>> 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer > >>> the > >>> > >>> above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you > >>> are > >>> > >>> aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the > >>> next > >>> > >>> stage until a response has been received from each author and > listed > >>> > >>> contributor. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you are on the AVTcore/payload WG email list but are not listed > >>>as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations > under > >>>the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you > >>>are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain > >>>from participating in any contribution or discussion related to > your > >>>undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed > >>>above and > >>> > >>> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ Audio/Video > >>>Transport Core Maintenance avt@xxxxxxxx > >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt