Hi, I want to thank Peter and Tim to take my comments into account in version 4 of this document. I'm happy with version this version. Regards, Stephan On 4.30.2012 19:19 , "Stephan Wenger" <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi, >Here are a few comments to this draft. >Stephan > >(1) Section 3.1, final paragraph. An IETF disclosure has to be made >against a Contribution. In the case described in this paragraph, the >Contribution may not have been made at the time of the Disclosure request, >and, therefore, it would be impossible to make a Disclosure. For example, >if someone wants to discuss a technology verbally, you cannot make an IPR >disclosure before the words have been uttered. I would remove this >paragraph. Alternatively, limit it to "materials you plan to make >available at the meeting" in the sprit it of section 4.1. > >(2) Section 3.2, "silence may be interpreted as a weak "No".". This >statement is IMO not supported by the IETF patent policy, and should >therefore be removed. Generally speaking, any additional burden to >non-Contributors beyond making them aware of the voluntary disclosure >opportunity IMP constitutes a policy change and must be avoided. > >(3) Section 3.3. I would replace "author" with "authors and other >Contributors". Or "known Contributors", "prominent Contributors", or >something like this. It is entirely possible, and in fact not uncommon, >that non-author Contributors influence the technology choices of I-Ds. >One possible metric for identifying some of these Contributors would be a >review of the Acknowledgement section many I-Ds include. I see this >mentioned in section 3.4; I would shift (or duplicate?) the burden of >double-checking with Contributors to the WG chairs as WGLC. > >(4) Section 4.2. Suggest to include Contributors in the spirit of comment >(3) above. > >(5) Section A.1. The email has a logical structure, but sometimes a >logical structure may not have the best effect. As written, people will >probably not read it in its entirety, but will give up once its clear that >it includes legalese. Suggest to move the final paragraph "As FOO WG >chairs" to the top, and put the formal justification stuff at the end. > >(6) Section A.2: I would substitute "Dear FOO WG" with "Dear FOO WG and >especially authors and Contributors:" > >(7) Section A.2, third paragraph, sentence "We will not be able to advance >this document to the next stage until we have received a reply from each >author and listed contributor." If this sentence starts appearing with >some consistency in IETF WGs, then we have a de-facto policy change >(requiring affirmative negative declarations). Suggest to soften the >language: "we may not be able to advance" or "it does not appear to be >sensible to us to advance" > >(8) Section A.2, fourth paragraph: I would express this along the >following: "you are reminded of your opportunity for a voluntary IPR >disclosure under BCP79 section xxx. Unless you want to make such a >voluntary disclosure, please do not reply." > >(9) Section A.3, see previous comments (7) and (8). > >(10) Section A.4, see previous comment (7) > >(11) Section A.5, see previous comment (7) > > > >On 4.30.2012 18:27 , "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >>the following document: >>- 'Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) >> Disclosure Rules' >> <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> as Informational RFC >> >>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-05-28. Exceptionally, comments may be >>sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >>beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >>Abstract >> >> >> The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in >> documents produced within the IETF stream is essential to the >> accurate development of community consensus. However, this process >> is not always followed by participants during IETF standardization. >> Regardless of the cause or motivation, noncompliance with IPR >> disclosure rules can derail or delay completion of standards >> documents. This document describes strategies for promoting >> compliance with the IPR disclosure rules. The strategies are >> primarily intended for area directors, working group chairs, and >> working group secretaries. >> >> >> >> >>The file can be obtained via >>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure/ >> >>IESG discussion can be tracked via >>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure/ballot/ >> >> >>No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> >> >> >