Subject: allowable questions (was Re www...)

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 03:08:01 -0700 (PDT)

Ned,

Please help me understand your reasoning:

> We participate in the IETF as individuals, not as corporate represenatives.
> As such, asking about [company] product plans on the WG mailing is 
> completely and totally inappropriate.

Are you really trying to discourage asking questions of self-selected 
designated experts?

Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but 
their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20.  If Robin Doe 
works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of 
the checksum working group, and that working group has published 
documents clearly indicating that checksum algorithms must be able to 
accomodate packets of at least size 40, why is it not appropriate to 
ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?

Your implication that there should be a prior restraint on allowable 
questions is not only at odds with interpretations of the scientific 
method which insist on transparency, but is also contrary to Article 
27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If your reasoning is based on the possible existence of non-disclosure 
agreements, please say so.  I think we need to have a clear discussion 
about which kinds of NDAs are compatible with IESG duty.

Cheers,
James

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:42:57 +0200

> ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?

Ned wrote that it was unappropriate to have that question on the 
mailinglist of the wg, and further said you can ask the person in question 
in private mail.

You as participant in the IETF have to understand that Robin in your 
example clearly have to have an ability to differentiate between the two 
roles he has. As chair of the wg and as a spokesperson for the company. 
Asking these kind of questions on the wg mailinglist doesn't make the life 
easy for Robin.

We have to take care of our wg chairs, as their job is among the most 
important ones which are done in the IETF. The people working as wg chairs 
doesn't have an easy task. Espeically not "at home" in cases like the one 
you describe.

   paf

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:00:31 -0700 (PDT)

Patrik,

If you or Ned are not already aware from the context of my disputed 
question and my previous posts, I tried private emails and phone calls, 
prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer 
list of requested solutions which still seem like entirely constructive 
critisism to me.  As I stated, they were only met with evasions and 
invitations to expensive marketing events.

Is there any way to resolve this situation other than asking IESG 
participants to state their own NDA restrictions up front?

Cheers,
James 

> From [email-masked] Sun Apr  8 05:44:33 2001
> To: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)
>

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:17:02 -0400

>participants to state their own NDA restrictions up front?

You are perfectly free to ask any question you wish.  However, that 
does not mean that you required to receive an answer.

I do not know about other countries, but I do know that the US 
government has taken action against companies for announcing products 
and then deciding later to not offer those products.  Hence, most 
people do not talk about possible future product offerings until they 
are duly approved and ready to be offered to customers.

You can ask anyone, WG chair or not, about their product plans and 
they would be very foolish to answer with anything other than a 
qualified (evasive, if you will) manner.  You can not and probably 
should not get a definitive answer unless the capability is nearly 
ready for release.  This is all part of doing business.  No company 
will ever commit (nor should they) to implementing a standard before 
it is completed.  Many things can happen between the time a standard 
is developed and the time it is ready for implementation that can 
effect a company's decision.

Unfortunately, uncertainty in business is something we all have to 
learn to live with.

Take care,
John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 23:46:31 -0400

> are duly approved and ready to be offered to customers.

However, I suspect that RamBus is about to find out that failing to
disclose pending patents may be a bad idea:

http://www.ebnews.com/digest/story/OEG20010406S0061

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:33:57 -0700 (PDT)

> Are you really trying to discourage asking questions of self-selected

Questions about WG standards, the development of WG standards, or other WG
activities are of course appropriate to a WG mailing list.

> ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?

First of all, what you said on the WG mailing list and what you describe above
aren't exactly comparable. On the WG mailing list you asked about whether or
not a particular company has plans to enhance a specific piece of commercial
hardware in a very specific way. That's quite different from asking someone
whether or not their company generally intends to support some standard.

While I'd say it isn't something to be widely encouraged, as a practical matter
is it often useful to take stock of how widely a given standard will be
supported commercially, if only to assess whether or not the standards activity
is close to the mark. Had you simply done that I would not have said anything.

Again I must point out that people participate in the IETF as individuals, not
as corporate representatives. You sent a message that asked the chair of a WG
about his company's plans to enhance a commercial product. Not only does this
have nothing to do with standards development or any other WG activity, it
drags the chair's other role as a commercial software developer into the fray
and thereby puts him in a fairly awkward position. Being a WG chair is hard
enough as it is; we should try to avoid making it any harder.

We do have specific rules about intellectual property disclosures being a
prerequisite to IETF participation. And these apply to all participants, not
just WG chairs. But this doesn't extend to having to disclose of product plans.
If that were the case practically nobody would be able to participate in the
IETF process.

> 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh please. All I said was that questions about specific commercial product
plans weren't appropriate for a WG mailing list. I never said you were
forbidden from asking such questions. In fact I specifically told you that you
should take up the matter in a more appropriate forum.

Of course that doesn't mean that anybody owes you an answer. Indeed, the legal
situation surrounding corporate product plan disclosures and the possibility of
subsequent lawsuits, I'd say the chances of you getting an answer aren't great.
But you are certainly entitled to ask -- in an appropriate forum.

> about which kinds of NDAs are compatible with IESG duty.

My reasoning is based on the notion that a WG mailing list is for discussions
of the standards that WG is developing and other WG matters, and not a forum
for discussion of commercial product plans. Non-disclosure agreements don't
enter into it at all.

				Ned

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:23:01 -0700

At 02:00 PM 4/8/2001, James P. Salsman wrote:
>I tried private emails and phone calls,
>critisism to me.

This appears to be the core of the problem.  You appear to believe that 
because you were not successful at pursuing a company/product line of 
discussion with the individual, privately, that you self-entitled to 
intrude on a public standards forum -- one that, for that matter, has 
explicit rules against such lines of discussion -- to get some attention.

Now, the only other question is whether the rest of us are going to let 
this matter drop quickly and completely, or whether we will permit your 
exercise in selfishness to distract us further...

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:45:27 -0400

In my opinion, the situtation with regard to Non-diclsoure Agreements
is quite simple.  No one participating in the IETF, from of the
IETF/IAB Chairs to the most common participant is under any IETF
requirements to disclose or answer any questions about what NDAs they
are bound by.  However, should an NDA conflict with a duty they have
in an IETF role, they have exactly three choices: (1) get the NDA
modified so it no longer conflicts, (2) chose to violate the NDA, or
(3) withdraw from that role at least to the extent of the conflict.
For example, anyone aware of IPR claims who is bound not to disclose
that must, where they are relevant to an IETF standards effort, either
withdrawl from participation in that effort, get the restriction
relaxed, or chose to violate the restriction and notify the IETF of
the IPR claim.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date:  Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
To:  [email-masked]
Cc:  [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To:  <3288297.986740977@[192.168.1.29]>

>...

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:36:12 -0400

>disclose pending patents may be a bad idea:

Pending patents are a different matter.  First of all, pending 
patents do not necessarily have anything to do with product plans. 
Second, if you are participating in a standards process that asks 
that a participant divulge any patents that may be relevant to their 
work and you don't, then you are not playing by the rules.  That 
said, it is not clear what the committee can do about it.  They can't 
very well censure the participant, the damage is done.  The fact that 
the company will have undermined its influence in the committee is 
about all one can hope for.

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:33:24 -0700 (PDT)

Dave,

Your reply confuses me:

>... a public standards forum ... has explicit rules against such
> lines of discussion....

Which rules are you referring to?

Cheers,
James

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:08:32 -0700 (PDT)

John,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply:

>... You can ask anyone, WG chair or not, about their product plans 
> and they would be very foolish to answer with anything other than a 
> ready for release....

I will not forget the distictions between qualification and evasion.

Cheers,
James