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.wu@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Glen Zorn
Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-
qoe.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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:gwz@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:51 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gwz@xxxxxxxxxxx;
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