The concern in any case is that IETF or IPP is represented as having
vendors, or vendor representatives, as members of the working group.
> 2) There were a number of further drafts after April 17, distributed
> for review on the IPP list. Why did you not speak up, if you noticed
> that your comments had not been taken into account properly?
Time constraints, along with a large number of working groups, prevent
me from keeping track of working groups on a daily basis, or even
every single week. For most working groups this is sufficient, but
then again, most working groups only produce draft documents that go
through to the IESG for review anyway.
> 3) What is the difference between a particular company putting out a
> press relaese about supporting a particular IETF project and the PWG
> (as a group of cooperating vendors) doing the same?
If either PWG or a vendor wants to say it's supporting IETF's work,
fine. IETF simply does not wish to be misrepresented.
The press release can easily be taken to say that vendors are
participants in an IETF working group. This is not IETF policy and is
not how IETF working groups operate.
IETF would also ask for a correction if a vendor represented IETF in a
similar way.
> 4) A general observation about the policy not to mention company names
> is that it does not seem to be applied in practise, even in IETF
> sanctioned publications.
The IETF does list its participants' affiliations (unless the
participant wishes otherwise), but the participants themselves are
individuals, who are assumed to represent only themselves.
> I am willing to take on the cost of sending out a correction to the
> press release, but we would like you to draft the text.
Per your suggestion in a separate message, I am willing to draft the
correction and send it out, once you supply the contact addresses.
> Concerning the Web pages, I want you to give a few concrete
> examples. There might be some older documents on our FTP site, from
> the time before we were established as a WG, that might fall under the
> category you mentioned, they could simply get deleted (or have access
> restricted to the members of the PWG).
It isn't necessary to remove all vendor references, only to correct
those documents that imply that IETF or IPP has vendors or vendor
representatives as participants of its working groups.
> Actually, I just received the following message from our web editor in
> response to your message:
>
> -------
>
> A quick check of the Web pages shows that other than the press release
> itself there was only one place a company name was used: next to the
> name of the Web page maintainer ("Jeffrey L Copeland at QMS, Inc.").
> That was there to keep me from getting confused with the Jeffrey
> Copeland at Systemhouse, but I've removed it anyway.
>
> As a stop-gap for the press release problem, I've removed the
> references to it on the web page. As soon as there's a fix for the
> release itself, I'll put the new one up.
> ----
This sounds fine to me. And there's no problem with references of the
style "Jeffrey L Copeland at QMS, Inc.".
Keith