Hi, Carlos and Brian,
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, Brian,
On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
On 9/20/17 3:11 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
* The shepherd writeup mentions IPR 2557 in relation to this draft. However, the IPR declaration is only associated with the original individual draft. The IPR declaration needs to be updated to refer to the WG draft.
[GF]: If needed we can renew the IPR declaration to refer to the WG draft.
It might not hurt, but at the same time, a question:
RFC 8179 S 5.4.2 talks about inheritance of IPR disclosures:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-5.4.2
IPR
disclosures against a particular Contribution are assumed to be
inherited by revisions of the Contribution and by any RFCs that
are published from the Contribution unless the disclosure has been
updated or withdrawn.
It is not clear if a “revision” of an I-D as a contribution includes renaming it as WG document, merges, etc.
The data tracker tooling seems to be coded such that, if there is a Replaced_by relationship, the IPR declaration follows:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id= draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark
“Total number of IPR disclosures found: 1."
And contributors all acknowledged IPR 2557.
So the question:
* The shepherd writeup mentions IPR 2557 in relation to this draft. However, the IPR declaration is only associated with the original individual draft. The IPR declaration needs to be updated to refer to the WG draft.
Does it carry forward?
I think the answer is "sort of"...
If I look at the datatracker page for the WG, I do see 2557 listed
against the WG draft here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ippm/documents/
However, I do not see that declaration when looking at the HTML'ized
version of the draft here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10
Although it is listed against the document at(See right underneath IANA a highlighted “1”)
And I’d assume the datatracker as a more authoritative rendering.
while I do see it listed against the original individual submission here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03
The IPR search page does show the indirect disclosure based on the
individual submission.
So, it looks like an issue in the HTML rendering of the WG draft.
Thank you for checking.
Yes, thank you for that.
In any case, I appreciate your initial point and I believe being explicit and update the declaration is the way to go.
Clarity is never wrong, but it's also worth Spencer asking the IESG if they know about this (in)consistency,
I'll let you know what I find out.
Spencer, who has to do SOMETHING around here to be helpful :-)
Thanks,
— Carlos.
Regards,
Brian