|
|
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
On 5/23/12 2:16 AM, SM wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I understand why the intended status is not BCP. I suggest taking into > account the wider audience feedback to determine whether the it should > not be made clearer. OK, Tim and I will look into perhaps adding a sentence or two about this. > A question which is not covered by the draft is when a draft is > "adopted" through a charter. I assume that the AD will contact the > authors in such cases. Even if a document is mentioned in a charter as a likely starting point, the chairs still need to make an explicit call for adoption of that document as a WG item. > In Section 2: > > There is a typo, "secretatires". > > in Section 3.1: > > "If necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have a > choice: insist on an informal disclosure in the presentation, or deny > the agenda slot unless the IPR disclosure is submitted. One factor > in this decision could be the number of revisions that have occurred: > the chairs might wish to permit presentation of a -00 draft with a > verbal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through multiple > cycles." > > The boilerplate explicitly states that this draft as any other draft is > submitted in full conformance with the provisions of the usual BCPs. If > disclosures are necessary they should be submitted especially if the > goal of this draft is to promote compliance. Informal disclosures > causes uncomfortable situations as there are usually valid reasons. > There is also the presumption of good faith which makes it a difficult > decision. I don't know how often verbal disclosures go on record. The slides and audio are part of the record. > The > information may not be available to the working group (decisions are > taken through the mailing list) unless the participants go through the > audio. Naturally it would be best if the disclosure were explicitly called out in the minutes, as well. However, I agree with you that a formal disclosure is always best. Let me chat about this with Tim. > In A.1: > > "In order to comply with IETF processes while avoiding unnecessary > delays, document authors and contributors to our discussions in > the FOO WG are asked to take these messages seriously, and to > reply in a timely fashion." > > Is there any message from WG chairs which should not be taken seriously? > :-) I'll suggest: > > In order to comply with IETF processes and avoid unnecessary delays, > document authors and contributors to our discussions in the FOO WG > are asked to take pay careful attention to these messages and to > reply in a timely fashion. WFM. > In A.2: > > "We will weigh this information when we judge the consensus on > the call for adoption." > > The wording is not that clear. It is up to the participants to see > whether they are ok to work the specification given the IPR claims. Sam > Hartman posted some possible responses in such cases ( > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08992.html ). Yes, I saw that message, and I thought it was helpful. > What we were are looking for here is whether there are any claims. The > easy path is to remove the sentence and keep the IPR question for the > follow-up question. Now your wording is not clear to me. What do you mean by "the follow-up question"? > In A.3: > > "The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group > Last Call. Before issuing the Last Call, we would like to check" > > I suggest "before issuing the Working Group Last Call" as Last Call is > generally considered as what's in the subject line of this message. Good point. Thanks for the feedback! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/