>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-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Monday, September 16, 2013 19:35 +0700 Glen Zorn > <gwz@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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? > >