Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules
RFC 6702

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-06-18 for -04)
No email
send info
- Section 3.3.  Requesting WG Last Call

   Working Group Last Call is a particularly significant milestone for a
   working group document, measuring consensus within the working group
   one final time.  If IPR disclosure statements have not been
   submitted, the judgement of consensus by the chairs would be less
   than reliable.  

While I think I understand what the second sentence means, my first impression while reading it was: what's connection between "IPR disclosure statement" and the consensus "reliability"? 
Do you want to say that the "judgement of consensus would be based on incomplete assumptions", or something similar?.
Most certainly not an issue for English native speakers!


- I see in section 3.4
   If the answer to the write-up
   question is not favorable, or if the chairs did not take any of the
   actions listed above, the AD might choose to contact the authors and
   listed contributors to confirm that the appropriate IPR disclosure
   statements have been filed before advancing the document through the
   publication process. 

That document would be perfect if the email for that use case would be added in the Appendix A.


- Section A.4.  Reminder to Meeting Presenter
Isn't the WG chair who is the supposed to send this email?
It's signed by "Christopher (as AD)"

- For new comers (and this draft mainly targets new comers), maybe a sentence or two or how to check whether there is already an IPR associated with a draft.
Example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-04 -> an IPR link would appear on the top right hand side
Or insert the draft/RFC in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-06-17 for -04)
No email
send info
In section 3.4, after the quote from the shepherd questionnaire, at the beginning of the last paragraph, I suggest inserting a sentence like, "Shepherds should be asking these questions of the authors directly." It's implicit, but it seems to me not implicit enough.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-06-15 for -04)
No email
send info
- I had a situation where there was an IPR declaration for
RFCfoo, but when the RFCfoo-bis draft was being done, nobody
went to the IPR holder and asked them to say if the new draft
should also have a declaration, and by the time it got to me,
nobody from the IPR holder was involved in the WG. That added a
bit of delay. Anyway, would it make sense to say that another
good thing for a chair/secrerary to do is, when starting work
on a bis document where the original RFC has an IPR
declaration, please go check with whoever posted that
declaration to see if a new one can be gotten or is needed?

- I guess the above is similar to handling the replaced-by
relationship (that the IPR tools follow) so would similar
guidance for that situation be worth adding, i.e. "please check
the replaced-by" relationship is in order so the right thing
will happen at IETF LC at least.

(Sorry for thinking of those so late in the game)

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-06-21 for -04)
No email
send info
I've cleared my Discuss, supporting the inclusion of the
text in Stewart's Comment.

"Socialize" is a colloquialism that might better be replaced by
"discuss"; e.g., from Section 3:

   In general, these opportunities are encountered during initial
   public discussion, working group adoption...

   When IETF participants wish to promote public discussion of a
   personal draft in hopes of future adoption by a working group...

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-06-18 for -04)
No email
send info
I am clearing my discuss on the basis that text of the following form will be added:

5.  A Note About Preliminary Disclosures

   Early disclosures are not necessarily complete disclosures.  Indeed,
   [RFC3979] can be read as encouraging "preliminary disclosure" (e.g.,
   when a new patent application is made), yet a preliminary disclosure
   might not be updated as new information becomes available later in
   the standardization process (e.g., when a patent is actually
   granted).  To help prevent early IPR disclosures from becoming stale
   or incomplete, at important junctures in the standardization process
   (e.g., before Working Group Last Call or IETF Last Call) WG chairs
   and ADs are encouraged to request that the Executive Director of the
   IETF contact those who submitted early IPR disclosures about updating
   their disclosures.

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info