Subject: On encouraging compliance with IPR disclosure rules

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:05:46 -0500

Hello,

Our AD suggested that other chairs may be interested to our (CCAMP WG
Chairs) response to being one of the groups hit with a recent very late
IPR disclosure. We've sent two messages to the WG:

1) A general reminder of IPR disclosure requirements and process:
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13082.html

2) An announcement of a WG process change, where a statement on
compliance with IETF IPR rules is required by all authors and
contributors listed in a draft before the draft is moved to the next
step in WG process:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13083.html

I personally think it would be worthwhile for such messages/policies to
be available in a standard form (perhaps from the IESG?) for use by any
WG, as well be supported in the datatracker I-D workflow.

Lou

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:29:16 -0500

--On Friday, February 10, 2012 12:05 -0500 Lou Berger
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Our AD suggested that other chairs may be interested to our
> (CCAMP WG Chairs) response to being one of the groups hit with
> a recent very late IPR disclosure. We've sent two messages to
> the WG:
> 
> contributors listed in a draft before the draft is moved to
> the next step in WG process:
> 
> I personally think it would be worthwhile for such
> messages/policies to be available in a standard form (perhaps
> from the IESG?) for use by any WG, as well be supported in the
> datatracker I-D workflow.

Lou,

FWIW, I think these are very useful steps.   As discussed in
another context (I don't think on this list), I think there is a
third piece of the puzzle that would be helpful.  That would be
an explicit agreement with newly-appointed document editors and
with authors of documents that are made part of WG work programs
that they are bound by the IPR rules, that, as authors/editors,
they have special obligations to the WG to be alert to things
they ought to disclose and doing those disclosures promptly, and
(I hope this can be put more politely) if they are caught in
failure to disclose or making very late disclosures, they will
be removed as authors.

The difficulty with your two pieces without the third is that an
author could get up to the point that the WG is ready to advance
the document, get your sign-off request note, plead surprise,
and disclose at that time.   Obviously, that would be a better
time to get the disclosure than after Last Call (or later), but
it would imply that the WG needs to stop whatever it is doing on
a document it thought was just about finished and go back and
discuss whether a different path would have been chosen if the
IPR had been disclosed earlier.  At best, that would be
unpleasant to manage.

best,
   john

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:45:02 -0500

Thanks for sharing this. The MMUSIC group finds itself in a somewhat 
similar situation in that we recently adopted two Huawei authored drafts 
as WG items. The drafts have been presented in a couple of meetings 
previously without any IPR disclosures, however this week we received 
IPR disclosures on both drafts from Huawei. Having a common approach on 
how to deal with this and hopefully avoid a repeat in the future in any 
group would be useful.

Thanks

-- Flemming

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:46:43 -0800

John,

On 2/10/2012 9:29 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> failure to disclose or making very late disclosures, they will

"Authorship" is determined by many factors, the primary of which should 
be *who wrote what*. I've seen too many WGs 'trade' authorship for 
various things, which is ridiculous and offensive IMO.

Trading it as a threat against IPR disclosure isn't realistic at all...

> and disclose at that time.

It can easily be impossible to prove the difference between someone who 
lied vs. someone who legitimately didn't know until that time.

IPR disclosure is certainly a tricky issue, and we all hope people do 
the right thing, but short of mind-reading this isn't enforceable 
anyway. Threatening with removing someone as the author of work they 
wrote is both inappropriate and ineffective.

Joe

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:48:48 -0500

John,
	I strongly agree, and think we need an ietf-wide policy that says
> failure to disclose or making very late disclosures, they will

In particular, I think contributors need to clearly understand the
implications of not following the the IPR disclosure rules.

When I've (privately) proposed similar language in the past the typical
response has been along the lines of that fixed rules are too simplistic
for the complicated real world of the IETF.  I don't agree; I think
there are some clear cases, and for these I think a formal
"consequences" rule is useful & justified.

I'd be happy to support and contribute to a draft on this topic, even
though it's likely to be a contentious discussion.

Lou

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:48:57 -0500

> failure to disclose or making very late disclosures, they will

While I agree with the philosophy expressed here, I wonder about the 
mechanics:

Surely we can remove someone as editor. But removing as author isn't so 
easy. (That discussion has been going on independently.) If this person 
has written most of the words in the doc, then it is pretty hard to 
remove them as an author of the document. (Unless of course the doc is 
also rewritten - presumably to avoid the IPR.)

Perhaps we could make past history of IPR disclosure problems a 
criterion in choosing editors of new documents, and of accepting new 
documents as WG drafts. But that does smack of blacklisting.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:00:57 -0500

--On Friday, February 10, 2012 09:46 -0800 Joe Touch
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
>...
> "Authorship" is determined by many factors, the primary of
> which should be *who wrote what*. I've seen too many WGs
> 'trade' authorship for various things, which is ridiculous and
> offensive IMO.

Concur.
 
> Trading it as a threat against IPR disclosure isn't realistic

Wasn't suggesting "trading" (or any of a number of odious
practices).   But the idea that someone can accept a position of
trust and responsibility with a WG (author, editor, chair, ...),
ignore IPR (or other important) requirements, plead ignorance,
and then continue in those roles really offends me.  Worse, it
is a threat to a the consensual model by which the IETF
functions -- a model that assumes we are working together in
good faith and mutual trust to get things done.  

Maybe that formal agreement with an author/editor should not
discuss sanctions but should merely require that person to stand
up in front of the WG and say "in front of all of you, I am
asserting that I understand the IPR policies and intend to
comply with them" because the really important thing is that
someone should not be able to wait until the 11th hour (or a few
hours past that) and then plead that they were ignorant earlier.

FWIW, from my point of view, an author's ignoring the IPR rules
is exactly the same sort of breach of trust with the WG that the
author's refusing to follow WG consensus decisions about what
should be in the document would be.   As a WG Chair, or even a
WG participant, I want and need to have that person out of that
role, independent of (and superceding) whatever other agreements
might have been made.

>> The difficulty with your two pieces without the third is that
>> an author could get up to the point that the WG is ready to
>> advance the document, get your sign-off request note, plead
>> surprise, and disclose at that time.
> 
> It can easily be impossible to prove the difference between
> someone who lied vs. someone who legitimately didn't know
> until that time.

True.  And not interesting.  I think we have a problem if WG
participants/ contributors can legitimately claim that they
didn't know the rules.  But, in the case of any author/editor
(or a WG Chair), I believe we are obligated to do everything
reasonable to make sure that the individual is informed, has
acknowledged being informed, and so that the claim cannot be
"legitimately" made.   And, once we have done that, we just need
to reject any "didn't know" or "was ignorant of the rules"
claims at illegitimate.  

That doesn't require making a judgment that someone was lying
rather than being stupid, careless, deliberately oblivious, or a
variety of other things (including being ordered to do so by a
malevolent company).   I don't think we need to go there and I
don't want to.    

Personally, as a WG chair, I would just want the individual out
as author or editor for breach of trust with the WG and the
IETF.  My reasons are less some idea about punishment than they
are about not wanting a person whom the WG can't trust to learn
and be responsive to the rules in a critical-path role during
any of Last Call, AUTH48, Errata processing, or preparation of
follow-on documents.

You may reasonably disagree, but I'd be interested in hearing
how you would propose to deal with breaches of the trust
relationship between the WG and an author/editor.  I don't find
"be nice, sympathize with the circumstances, and hope there will
never be another problem" particularly satisfying.  Perhaps I'm
in the minority.

> IPR disclosure is certainly a tricky issue, and we all hope
> people do the right thing, but short of mind-reading this
> isn't enforceable anyway. Threatening with removing someone as
> the author of work they wrote is both inappropriate and
> ineffective.

Again, not suggesting mind-reading.  I'm just suggesting that,
for people who are appointed and formally trusted to serve the
WG, we need to be sure they understand the rules when they take
on that responsibility and agree to follow them.  If we do that,
then anything out of line with the rules is a breach of trust
issue, not a question of what was in someone's mind.   I'm
perfectly ok with claims that breaches of trust are
unintentional.  They just don't change the required outcome for
me.   I can't imagine the IETF going for an "oath of office" for
authors/editors, WG Chairs, or others and am not proposing that,
but this is the sort of situation for which oaths of office were
created -- making certain that the expectations are agreed to
and that there is no doubt about what those expectations are..

--On Friday, February 10, 2012 12:48 -0500 Lou Berger
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> In particular, I think contributors need to clearly understand
> the implications of not following the the IPR disclosure rules.

Up to a point, certainly.  But, per my response to Joe above, I
think the implications are much more that not following the
rules is a series breach of community trust and that the
community has the right and obligation to protect itself from
repetitions, than it is about punishment for bad deeds.

> When I've (privately) proposed similar language in the past
> the typical response has been along the lines of that fixed
> rules are too simplistic for the complicated real world of the
> IETF.  I don't agree; I think there are some clear cases, and
> for these I think a formal "consequences" rule is useful &
> justified.

As someone who has argued for a long time for maximum
flexibility, I agree about the fixed rules, but...   Perhaps,
given Joe's comments, my original proposal was better stated.
It wasn't "you will be fired" but "if you get yourself into that
situation, it will be considered as an implicit resignation".
That would give the WG Chair(s), presumably in consultation with
relevant ADs and maybe the WG, the flexibility to not accept the
resignation if conditions made that wise.  But we would have no
disputes over whether the WG Chair had the "right" to "fire"
someone over a disclosure problem either.

But I believe all of us have the necessary discretionary
authority to do that already (just as you had the necessary
discretionary authority to send out those two notes).  WG Chairs
have a lot of authority over who gets to be a document author or
editor.  While it is unusual, I've told people who have written
documents that become WG drafts that they don't get to hold the
pen for the WG because they are too committed to one position,
and I imagine that others have too.   So, from now on, I'm not
accepting anyone as a new author or editor for a WG document
without getting very explicit agreement that they understand the
IPR policy and intend to follow both its letter and its spirit.
I'd be delighted if the IESG and/or IETF Trust supplied me with
a standard template for getting that agreement and signoff, but
I don't think I need one.

    john

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:13:27 -0800

Hi, John,

> good faith and mutual trust to get things done.

Authorship is a matter of fact (granted, arguable fact in some cases).

Editors and chairs are positions of trust and responsibility. I agree 
that these can - and should - incur penalties when we have reasonable 
belief that *any* IETF/IRTF process requirements aren't being respected 
- those include IPR, trading authorship for cookies, etc.

> hours past that) and then plead that they were ignorant earlier.

They should be please ignorance of the rules. They can *always* plead 
ignorance of the IPR being relevant, or of the IPR itself - that's a 
permanent "escape mechanism" at any point, and I don't see a way around 
it unfortunately.

> role, independent of (and superceding) whatever other agreements

You can't undo authorship unless you cut text, IMO.

You can and should undo chairship and editorship just fine in these 
cases, I agree.

However, not knowing the rules and not knowing about the IPR are 
equivalent in impact - in both cases the IETF finds out late - sometimes 
too late to do anything (or too late to *want* to do anything).

...
> never be another problem" particularly satisfying.  Perhaps I'm

See above - I agree with your suggestion for roles that are under the 
assignment of the IETF. I don't think it's appropriate for roles that 
should *never* (UNDER ANY CIRCIMSTANCES) be under the assignment of the 
IETF - and I put "author" in that bin.

Joe

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:17:27 -0500

--On Friday, February 10, 2012 12:48 -0500 Paul Kyzivat
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> While I agree with the philosophy expressed here, I wonder
> about the mechanics:

See my previous note, but...

> Surely we can remove someone as editor. But removing as author
> isn't so easy. (That discussion has been going on
> independently.) If this person has written most of the words
> in the doc, then it is pretty hard to remove them as an author
> of the document. (Unless of course the doc is also rewritten -
> presumably to avoid the IPR.)

Nope.  RFC 3978, to which a pointer now appears in every new I-D
authors or editors post, clearly gives that text to the IETF to
do with as it likes, especially as part of the standards
process.  Taking someone who wrote a significant fraction of a
document and moving them to an acknowledgement that says as
little as "Thanks to Joe Furd for contributing very significant
portions of this document to the IETF" and as much more as the
WG believes to be appropriate.  We may have a problem with
patents and disclosure, but we have no problems at all in
copyrights in I-D text that is used by the IETF in creating IETF
documents (there are gray areas with other uses, but not with
that one).

Again, I really don't see a situation in which the WG had every
reason to believe that an author knew the IPR rules and still
didn't disclose something she clearly knew about earlier as
different from one in which the WG says "change section 1.2.3 to
read..." and the author refuses because he doesn't like the
change).

This would get complicated if the author, instead of saying "I
didn't understand or know about the IETF rules" said "I didn't
know about the IPR and couldn't reasonably be expected to know
about it".  Unless we have additional information that makes
those claims implausible, I think we have to accept that
position.  But, e.g., an inventor who is listed on a patent
application and who is also an IETF document author should be in
no position to claim lack of knowledge of either the IETF
policies or of the invention itself.

> Perhaps we could make past history of IPR disclosure problems
> a criterion in choosing editors of new documents, and of
> accepting new documents as WG drafts. But that does smack of
> blacklisting.

I wouldn't describe it that way and I'm not keeping black lists.
But I do believe that WGs, and WG Chairs, do have a
responsibility to ensure an appropriate relationship of trust
between the WG and the author -- trust that includes both "you
will keep the document in line with WG consensus" and "you will
work to make sure you are in compliance with the letter and
spirit of the IPR policy".

And, again, I see this much more in terms of making absolutely
sure that people are informed and cannot deny being informed and
in terms of trust than I do in terms of identifying and
punishing bad behavior.   In that regard, I think Adrian's work
on sanctions is very useful.  But, from my point of view, if we
get there, we have already failed, have a mess to clean up, and
want to deter future forms of bad behavior.   At least right
now, I'd rather concentrate on prevention and encouragement.

    john

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:23:03 -0500

John,

I largely agree with all you say below.
The one area that concerns me is when an IPR claim is filed at the last 
minute, and author(s) from the claiming company says "I didn't know 
about that" or "I just found out about that".

In some cases such a comment is clearly ingenuous (e.g. when the 
person's name is on the patent). But in other cases it might be true and 
it might be false but hard to prove. (It seems that in some cases 
companies are intentionally making it difficult for their standards 
participants to know what IPR they hold.)

In such cases, what are you suggesting the WG do?

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 2/10/12 2:00 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> for these I think a formal "consequences" rule is useful&
>> justified.
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:22:57 -0800

> documents (there are gray areas with other uses, but not with

Authorship goes beyond copyright.

And it's not true that in all cases the IETF owns the copyright; that 
depends on the clauses of the I-D (e.g., if it's before it's a WG item).

I don't think authorship should be under WG control. Authorship should 
be determined by the extent of the contribution, period. The WG has 
other positions that it more appropriately controls - editorship, wg 
chair, etc.

Further, putting authorship under control of the WG sets up the 
potential for trading authorship for favors - which happens offensively 
often enough as it is.

Regardless of what IETF process says on this matter, meddling with 
authorship is a bad idea, period.

Joe

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:30:07 -0500

John,
	It seems this discussion is following much of the same path as some of
my/our private discussions and is largely how we ended up with the two
messages we sent.

I'd like to reiterate that authorship is not the same as being the
editor of a WG document, and not every author is listed on a cover page.
 I'm sensitive to some of the points being made with regard to
authorship.  Bu, as you you said, as Chair we have a lot of authority
over who is editor (and on the first page).  While, I'd prefer to see a
formal statement along the lines of "if you are found to be in violation
of the IETF process (by whatever definition is agreed to) that it will
no longer be reasonable for you to be editor or listed on the 1st page
of a draft", WG chairs already have the authority to implement such a
policy....

WRT to your last comment on a template for "agreement and signoff". What
do you think about the one we're using?  It's the 2nd URL in my earlier
message (which was based on text from our AD).

Lou

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:41 -0000

Hi Paul,

You ask a reasonable question.
Please see draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions for a discussion of how this cannot
be a fixed penalty scheme. 
There has to be discretion both in assessing the magnitude of the offence, and
the clarity of the violation.

Kind of business as usual for handling human interactions. "You'll know it when
you see it"

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 10 February 2012 19:23
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: On encouraging compliance with IPR disclosure rules
> 
> John,
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:36:49 -0800

To be clear about the first page:

On 2/10/2012 11:30 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
...
> editor of a WG document, and not every author is listed on a cover page.

Authors are the names listed as authors of the RFC, in distributed 
materials managed by the IETF.

Yes, this may or may not be those on the first page of the doc, but in 
practice it is. It's not enough that they're listed as "additional 
contributors" or even acknowledged as explicit authors elsewhere in the doc.

IETF docs have authors of record. These days, those are the names on the 
first page that are not otherwise tagged as "editor".

Again, I don't think the IETF should be meddling with that. That is a 
right that is earned by writing text, not by decree of a WG or WG chair 
- to do so by decree is to give power to the WG to trade authorship for 
favors, and that goes on way too much as it is and needs to be 
discouraged rather than even endorsed.

Joe

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:45:27 -0500

--On Friday, February 10, 2012 14:30 -0500 Lou Berger
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> WRT to your last comment on a template for "agreement and
> signoff". What do you think about the one we're using?  It's
> the 2nd URL in my earlier message (which was based on text
> from our AD).

I think it is fine and said so earlier.   I also think that, for
the cases I'm much more concerned about, it is too late in the
sense that finding out that there is an IPR problem when the WG
is otherwise ready to advance a document is likely to be
profoundly disruptive.

So I'm still anxious to get some explicit signoff on "I know the
rules and I intend to follow them" and, if it is really
necessary, "my company will cooperate (or not interfere) with my
following them and intends to cooperate with this whole process
in good faith".   If we need the latter, it is probably better
stated as "I don't have any obligations to any individual or
organization whom I have reason to believe would interfere with
my carrying out these obligations to the IETF", which keeps it
individual.  But you get the idea.

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:47:09 -0500

--On Friday, February 10, 2012 14:23 -0500 Paul Kyzivat
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The one area that concerns me is when an IPR claim is filed at
> the last minute, and author(s) from the claiming company says
> "I didn't know about that" or "I just found out about that".
> 
> In some cases such a comment is clearly ingenuous (e.g. when
> the person's name is on the patent). But in other cases it
> might be true and it might be false but hard to prove. (It
> seems that in some cases companies are intentionally making it
> difficult for their standards participants to know what IPR
> they hold.)
> 

I'm going to give you and answer that you will probably find
unsatisfying (and I do too, but...):

I'm suggesting that the WG, and its leadership, consider the
circumstances carefully and act with reason and good sense.  

In situations in which it is not possible to determine fault, I
think the benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the IETF
participant - author.  In situations in which it is clear that
the author actually didn't know but that the company was
manipulating the information available to that author, I think a
discussion about removing the company name from the document and
whether that would be helpful in sending a message might be in
order (I've never been completely convinced that putting company
names in the first page header is consistent with our notions of
individual contributors anyway -- maybe they should appear only
as part of author addresses  of an an acknowledgment (e.g.,
"FooCo supported the work of Melvin Author on this document).

And, of course, if particular organizations show a pattern of
hiding IPR from authors/editors so that those people can't
disclose early --a pattern that could be deduced by a lot of
late disclosures of work in the author's area of competence-- it
would be entirely reasonable for WG Chairs or ADs to hesitate
about future author/editor roles for people supported by that
company.   If one calls that a blacklist, it is a blacklist on
the basis of observable patterns that create risks to the IETF
(given the disruptiveness of late disclosures) and does not
require making a judgment about bad behavior.

    john

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:48:08 -0800

On 2/10/12 11:22 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> potential for trading authorship for favors - which happens 
> offensively often enough as it is.
>

Just to be clear: When it comes to WG documents, the names that appear 
at the top of the document are the document editors. They may be 
"authors" in the RFC Editor sense of the word, but they are clearly the 
document editors. They are the people who are responsible to put in the 
document what the WG wants and they are the people that the RFC Editor 
is going to check with in AUTH48. They can, as per 2418, be removed from 
the position of document editor by the chair on behalf of the WG. If 
they have (in the opinion of the chair and the WG) violated process by 
way of not disclosing IPR in a reasonable fashion, thus interfering with 
the progress of the WG, that's perfectly reasonable grounds to remove an 
editor. If a chair removes a document editor, it is perfectly reasonable 
to remove them from the list of people at the top of the document. 
That's true both for both practical reasons (having someone who is not 
the document editor be responsible for AUTH48 is not best) and 
sanctioning reasons (people do consider it an honor to be listed on the 
front page). It is still good form to list the person in the 
acknowledgments section, because they were clearly contributors to the 
document.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:53:04 -0800

On 2/10/2012 11:48 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> document editors.

That's not universally true; in some WGs, there is a subset of names 
that are indicated as "ed." which are editors. These have been sometimes 
assigned separately, and other times selected from the previous authors.

However, it's incorrect that all such names on the first page of all WG 
docs are editors. They're not listed as such, and they're indicted in 
the suffix as "Authors' addresses", and in other IETF distributed 
material as authors.

Some docs don't have authors listed on the first page, only editors; 
sometimes this is because there are no clear authors, sometimes because 
it violated (ridiculous, IMO) RFC Editor policy (e.g., exceeding 5 
authors), and sometimes for no particular reason.

However, names listed on the first page that aren't clearly indicated as 
editors *are* authors.

Joe

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:59:02 -0500

Joe,
	I wouldn't argue with your view of authorship in an academic context,
but the IETF is academia.  We already have guidelines on Authors,
Contributors, Editors, etc from the RFC Editors, i.e.,
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html.  It seems that some of what you
express is at odds with their position, particularly with respect to
names on the first page.

Lou

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:03:54 -0800

> express is at odds with their position, particularly with respect to

Seems like they agree *exactly* here:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.auth

Further down, on author overload, my distinction between author and 
editor - and editor being clearly indicated as such - is verified.

Was there some particular text on that page you thought was relevant in 
contradicting my view?

Joe

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:18:09 -0500

Joe,
	See below.

Yes:
> It's not enough that they're listed as "additional

In particular a contributor may include those "who also contributed
significantly to the RFC." While an author is "considered to be equally
responsible for the contents of the document."  Note that the latter
refers to *responsibility* as the key attribute, not volume of text
contributed -- even when significant.

Lou

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:20:28 -0500

Joe,

Please see Pete's note for most of what I would have said.
Basically someone ceases to be an author (in the sense in which
you are using the term) the instant the document becomes a WG
(or, in the case of an individual submission, an IETF) work
product.  Some, including a few generations of IPR WGs would
argue that the cutover occurs even earlier.   

But see below.

> Authorship is a matter of fact (granted, arguable fact in some

In the general case, I agree with you and have argued several
times in the past that the IETF should take that position
whenever possible.  But that has not been the prevailing
position.  If I write a document and turn it over to the IETF
--especially for standardization-- I am "contributing" _all_ of
the fundamental rights that come with authorship -- copyright,
change control, final authority over what is published, and even
the right to be identified in anything but the acknowledgments.
The document can be altered into something I disagree with and
the most I can do is to insist my name be taken off the front
page.   If I don't like those rules, I have one option, which is
not to contribute documents to the IETF (probably not to
participate in the IETF more generally, but I might be able to
split some hairs).

> Editors and chairs are positions of trust and responsibility.
> I agree that these can - and should - incur penalties when we
> have reasonable belief that *any* IETF/IRTF process
> requirements aren't being respected - those include IPR,
> trading authorship for cookies, etc.

Yes.  But once the documents become WG work products, someone
who might have been an author (in your sense) of an earlier
version becomes an editor for all future ones, with the text
under the control of the WG to the degree to which it decides to
assert itself, regardless of whether the document says "(ed.)"
or not.

>> discuss sanctions but should merely require that person to
>> stand up in front of the WG and say "in front of all of you,
>> I am asserting that I understand the IPR policies and intend
>> to comply with them" because the really important thing is
>> that someone should not be able to wait until the 11th hour
>> (or a few hours past that) and then plead that they were
>> ignorant earlier.
> 
> They should be please ignorance of the rules. They can
> *always* plead ignorance of the IPR being relevant, or of the
> IPR itself - that's a permanent "escape mechanism" at any
> point, and I don't see a way around it unfortunately.

See my earlier response to Paul for this and several related
comments.

>> FWIW, from my point of view, an author's ignoring the IPR
>> rules is exactly the same sort of breach of trust with the WG
>> that the author's refusing to follow WG consensus decisions
>> about what should be in the document would be.   As a WG
>> Chair, or even a WG participant, I want and need to have that
>> person out of that role, independent of (and superceding)
>> whatever other agreements might have been made.
> 

I can in the IETF.  I recommend that you go read 3978 and the
Note Well again.   And, again, "author" on a document that is a
WG work product is s misnomer, a historical accident, or both.

>> relationship between the WG and an author/editor.  I don't
>> find "be nice, sympathize with the circumstances, and hope
>> there will never be another problem" particularly satisfying.
>> Perhaps I'm in the minority.
> 
> See above - I agree with your suggestion for roles that are
> under the assignment of the IETF. I don't think it's
> appropriate for roles that should *never* (UNDER ANY
> CIRCIMSTANCES) be under the assignment of the IETF - and I put
> "author" in that bin.

And, again, whether I agree with you about that being a useful
design is irrelevant.  The IETF has very clearly decided
otherwise and if I, as an author, don't like it I certainly have
the option of taking my document and going home, as long as I do
it before the document becomes an IETF "Contribution".

     john

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:50:38 -0800

Hi, Lou,

> contributed -- even when significant.

 From that same area:

When the RFC Editor refers to "contributors", we mean people, other than 
the authors, who also contributed significantly to the RFC. They should 
be listed in a Contributors section of the body of the document.

"responsible for the contents" can be interpreted as both writing and 
editing.

However, later the distinction is made very clear (annotations below are 
mine), since the title "editor" is introduced as a *separate* role:

---
A small set of author names, with affiliations, may appear on the front 
page header. These should be the lead author(s) who are most responsible 
for the actual text. When there are many contributors, the best choice 
will be to list the person or (few) persons who acted as document 
editor(s) (e.g.,"Tom Smith, Editor").

There is no rigid limit on the size of this set, but there is likely to 
be a discussion if the set exceeds five authors, in which case the right 
answer is probably to list one editor.

An RFC may include a Contributors section, listing those contributors 
who deserve significant credit for the document contents. The 
Contributors section is intended to provide a level of recognition 
greater than an acknowledgment and nearly equal to listing on the front
                                    ^^^^^^
page. The choice of either, both, or none of Contributor and 
Acknowledgment sections in a particular RFC depends upon the circumstance.

 >> i.e., not identical

-----

"Responsible" certainly includes many things, and the difference between 
author and contributor up to interpretation - AFAICT, from the above, 
based on the amount of contribution, not the "responsibility" per se.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:52:04 -0800

John,

See http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html, which distinguishes between 
authors and editors, and indicates the latter as explicitly labeled.

If you can find a place where all authors are replaced by an editor for 
all WG submissions, and that those editors are not indicated explicitly 
as editors, please cite it.

Joe

---

From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:01:45 -0500

Hi John,

I disagree with an assertion you make that the IETF can do anything they
like with a contribution. From RFC3978:

<excerpt>
7.1.  Rights Granted in IETF Contributions

   The IETF/ISOC must obtain the right to publish an IETF Contribution
   as an RFC or an Internet-Draft from the Contributors.

   A primary objective of this policy is to obtain from the document
   authors only the non-exclusive rights that are needed to develop and
   publish IETF Documents and to use the IETF Contributions in the IETF
   Standards Process while leaving all other rights with the authors.

   The non-exclusive rights that the IETF needs are:

   a. the right to publish the document
   b. the right to let the document be freely reproduced in the formats
      that the IETF publishes it in
   c. the right to let third parties translate it into languages other
      than English
   d. except where explicitly excluded (see Section 5.2), the right to
      make derivative works within the IETF process.
   e. the right to let third parties extract some logical parts, for
      example MIB modules

   The authors retain all other rights, but cannot withdraw the above
   rights from the IETF/ISOC.
<end excerpt>

When I helped coordinate transferring the IETF Bridge MIB documents to
IEEE for further work, the IEEE lawyers had to contact the authors to get
permission to do derivative work because the IETF is not grated the right
to grant to another SDO the right to develop derivative works.

I don't think the IETF has the right to remove somebody as author (and
RFC3978 references the Berne agreement, which I suspect but don't know
protects the author. I think we do have the right to remove somebody as WG
editor. So we should be able to remove them frpm the front page, but
someplace in the document we need to acknowledge that they contributed to
the document.

I think lawyers need to decide just where that fine line exists between
removing an editor and removing an author.

This is of course my own personal opinion, and I am not a lawyer, nor do I
speak for the IESG.

--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[email-masked]
+1-603-828-1401

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:13:03 -0800

Joe,

Note the domain name in that URL. That is certainly the distinction that 
the *RFC Editor* makes between authors and contributors, but the RFC 
Editor *does not* define "editor" except in the overload section, where 
the statement is absolutely clear that the names on the first page may 
not be all of the people who actually were authors of the document. 
Additionally, nowhere in that policy is definition of the IETF concept 
of "Document Editor" given; that's defined in RFC 2418.

I stand by my statement that for purposes of working groups, the folks 
listed on the first page, what the RFC Editor calls the "Authors" are in 
fact what the IETF calls "Document Editors" in the context of WG 
documents. Of course, like many IETF procedures, we are not rigid in 
this, and sometimes we put more people in that section than are 
designated WG Document Editors. But I continue to claim that it is well 
within IETF and RFC Editor policy for a WG to put its Document Editors 
into the RFC Editor's Authors section, and for it to be entirely under 
the discretion of the WG to decide who those people are.

pr

On 2/10/12 12:52 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> If you can find a place where all authors are replaced by an editor 
> for all WG submissions, and that those editors are not indicated 
> explicitly as editors, please cite it.
>
> Joe
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:15:01 -0500

Dave,
	I really think the following excerpt is the key point that we, as WG
chairs, need to keep in mind:

>From below:
> I think we do have the right to remove somebody as WG
> someplace in the document we need to acknowledge that they
> contributed to the document.

This is a reasonably sized hammer, already in our tool box and ready to
be used.  I still think it would be useful to have a published policy on
when it will be used, even just for the most egregious cases, to set
community expectations.

Lou

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:17:01 -0800

On 2/10/2012 1:13 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> documents.

Is that documented anywhere?

Is the distinction between "document editor" and how those individuals 
are indicated on the front matter of the RFC defined anywhere?

> Of course, like many IETF procedures, we are not rigid in

I agree, but editors ought to be labeled as such, as per RFC Editor 
policy, as per typical publication policy throughout the publishing 
community.

Authors don't automatically become "just editors" when a doc becomes a 
WG doc.

Joe

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:12:47 -0500

> From: Lou Berger [[email-masked]]
> 

This statement led me to ask, "*Are* there any implications of not
following the IPR disclosure rules?"

A later poster's comments stimulate me to suggest:

    The editorship of the draft is to be removed from the author in
    question, and a statement added to the draft saying "The editing of
    this document was removed from [Name] of [Company] due to his/her
    violation of the IPR rules of RFC xxxx."

Dale

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:39:07 -0500

> From: Adrian Farrel [[email-masked]]
> 
> Dale, at the risk of becoming a bore...
> 
> Please read draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions

'Twould have been more informative if you'd said, "I've included that
as part of one possible sanction, listed in item 4g of
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions."

Dale

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Feb 2012 01:41:42 -0000

>Authorship goes beyond copyright.

In both directions.  Some people think that author credit is very
important, perhaps because their salary depends on how many documents
they publish.  For others of us, it's purely a vanity thing, and in
some circumstances I'd cheerily horse trade author credit, with
minimal concern about whether some third party felt offended.  So I
agree that using it as a club or a bargaining chip is not a good idea.

The IETF, due to its deliberate lack of structure, has a very weak set
of sanctions.  I don't see anything practical beyond name and shame.

R's,
John

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:34:19 -0000

Adrian

> Of Worley, Dale R (Dale)
> Sent: 10 February 2012 22:13
> To: IETF WG Chairs
> Subject: RE: On encouraging compliance with IPR disclosure rules
>