IANAL and I think the IESG needs to get the IETF's lawyer's opinion, preferably before tomorrow morning. But given the words in the BCP, better safe than sorry. A meeting scheduled in a room paid for as part of the IETF meeting sure seems as if it's probably intended to affect the standards process. Brian On 22-Jul-19 00:02, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am speaking as a person who ran the BOF where the specific > text "intended to affect the IETF Standards Process” was developed and agreed to as well as a person who > edited the specific text - it is my opinion that the BOF (and thus the IETF) intended the rules to apply > wherever actions are taken or text developed that are "intended to affect the IETF Standards Process” > in particular, IPR disclosure is required if known > > I have no opinion as to the facts of the specific case of ANRW since I have not been following that > > Scott > >> On Jul 21, 2019, at 7:42 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Scott, I think you may be over-stating things a bit. The IETF doesn't get to make universal statements that apply to things out of its remit. For example, there are numerous research conferences that are held on IETF-related technologies -- often with a specific focus on providing helpful input to IETF! -- which are not held under note well. >> >> The location of such meetings alongside IETF meetings does not change this fact. AFAICT, ANRW is not covered by Note Well, despite having the explicit goal of "transition[ing] research back into IETF". >> >> The definition of Contribution in 8179 makes this clear from the start: >> >> """ >> "Contribution": any submission to the IETF ... >> """ >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 7:27 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Thanks Scott, that's helpful. >> A >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: 21 July 2019 11:24 >> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: Applying "Note Well" to side meetings >> >> speaking as co-editor of the ruleset >> >> see the definition of “Contribution” in RFC 8179 >> >> basically, the “note well” applies whenever activities that are "intended to >> affect the IETF Standards Process” may happen >> >> Scott >> >>> On Jul 20, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Normally [1] when we have a "bar BoF" (also known as a "side meeting") we do >>> not apply the terms of the "Note Well" [2]. We have usually considered bar >>> BoFs to be outside the IETF because the IETF has no control over who meets >>> and drinks. >>> >>> However, this time around, the side meetings are somewhat more formal with >>> room bookings and projectors and advertisements and so on. >>> >>> So, does the Note Well apply to these side meetings? >>> >>> Apologies if I missed an email on this: I sometimes don't focus as much as I >>> should. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Adrian >>> >>> [1] For some practical definition of "normal" >>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/ >>> -- >>> Read some fairy stories for adults of all ages >>> .. Tales from the Wood >>> .. More Tales from the Wood >>> .. Tales from Beyond the Wood >>> .. Tales from the Castle >>> Get them on line https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ >>> Or buy a signed copy from me by post >>> *** Stop me in the corridor at IETF-105 to get a copy *** >>> >>> >>> >> > >
