--On Monday, September 16, 2013 07:14 -1000 Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote:
> can we try to keep life simple? it is prudent to check what > (new) ipr exists for a draft at the point where the iesg is > gonna start the sausage machine to get it to rfc. if the iesg > did not do this, we would rightly worry that we were open to a > submarine job. this has happened, which is why this formality > is in place. Agreed. I hope there are only two issues in this discussion: (1) Whether the IESG requires that the question be asked in some particular form, especially a form that would apply to other-than-new IPR. I think the answer to that question is clearly "no". (2) Whether the "submitted in full conformance..." statement in I-Ds is sufficient to cover IPR up to the point of posting of the I-D. If the answer is "no", then there is a question of why we are wasting the bits. If it is "yes", as I assume it is, then any pre-sausage questions can and should be limited to IPR that might be new to one or more of the authors. > if some subset of the authors prefer to play cute, my alarms > go off. stuff the draft until they can give a simple direct > answer. Agreed. While I wouldn't make as big an issue of it as he has (personal taste), I agree with him that asking an author to affirm that he or she really, really meant it and told the truth when posting a draft "submitted in full conformance..." is inappropriate and demeaning. While I think there might have been other, more desirable, ways to pursue it, I don't think that raising the issue falls entirely into the "cute" range. john
