Subject: RE: what "relates"?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:22:52 +0100

The actual language that was intended to be the 'rule' is what Robert
pointed out below.  That is, IPR that 'covers' the technology.  The term
'covers' has a legal meaning, and indicates that the IPR would be infringed
by the technology.

The looser term 'relates' was,I think, just an attempt to paraphrase 2.2.1.A
in the introduction to the rules.

In any case, either of these formulations is an improvement over existing
2026.10.3.1.6, which just refers to IPR 'in' the contribution. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Barr
To: Randy Presuhn; [email-masked]
Sent: 7/18/02 3:50 AM
Subject: RE: what "relates"?

There is better language in 2.2.1.A and this language should be used
consistently throughout the document to define the disclosure
obligation:

".intellectual property rights which cover or may cover the technology,
specifications or standards described in the contribution that . are
reasonably and personally known to the contributor"

rbarr, Cisco Systems

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

This e-mail message and any files attached are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and are confidential and may contain privileged information.  Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail immediately and destroy all copies of the original message.  To reply to our e-mail administrator directly, send an e-mail to [email-masked].

The Partners of the firm are either solicitors or registered foreign lawyers.  A list of the Partners and their professional qualifications is open for inspection at the address below.  Regulated by the Law Society.

BROBECK HALE AND DORR
Alder Castle
10 Noble Street
London
UK
EC2V 7QJ
Tel:     +44 (0)20 7645 2400
Fax:    +44 (0)20 7645 2424

http://www.bhd.com

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:46:12 +0200

Jorge, even with that definition of "covers" I think we need more clarification.

If there are multiple conceivable ways of implementing a protocol, and company X
owns a patent on *one* of those ways, that patent is not required to implement
the protocol. Does that patent cover the technology or not? Is company X
required to disclose it?

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:46:30 +0900

Some comments I noticed during the discussion today:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-submission-rights-00.txt

    The right to produce derivative works is required for all IETF
    standards track documents and for most non-standards track documents.
    There are two exceptions to this requirement:  documents describing
    proprietary technologies and documents that are republications of the
    work of other standards organizations.

- 'standard track documents' suggests this is all about RFCs (and not
   about I-Ds,...). Robert Elz said this has to be clarified if it
   is also intended to cover I-Ds. I think it has to be clarified
   in any case. I think it should be fixed to include I-Ds, and in
   that case it needs to say something about I-Ds intended to go to
   standards track vs. others.

- It is not clear whether the two exceptions apply only non-standard
   track documents or whether they may/can also apply to standards-track
   documents. The former seems preferable to me.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:25:18 +0900

I think the correct clarification is a little more complex...

- the IETF does not check for the right to produce derivative works at I-D 
submission time
- the IETF requires the right to create derivative works before basing work 
on an I-D where the intent is to create a working group document or a 
standards-track RFC
- the IETF can review and comment on no-derivative-works documents, but 
(since it can't produce derivative works) can't take responsibility for 
them.

Not sure how to phrase that into coherent legalese..

                 Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:29:50 +0200

I thought this was why we have three versions of the I-D boilerplate, which
cover whether or not derivative works are allowed.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:36:52 +0700

Date:        Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:25:18 +0900
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <303824646.1027326318@localhost>

  | - the IETF requires the right to create derivative works before basing work 
  | on an I-D where the intent is to create a working group document or a 
  | standards-track RFC
  | - the IETF can review and comment on no-derivative-works documents, but 
  | (since it can't produce derivative works) can't take responsibility for 
  | them.

I am kind of coming to the conclusion that part of the problem that
we continually have with this issue, is that we each have in our minds
something which "working group document" translates into, but it isn't
often the same thing (and I don't mean because some of us are thinking
in Norwegian or German and others aren't).

2026 doesn't seem to say anything about it at all.

2418 on the other hand, has a whole section headed "Working Group Documents"
which one might assume would actually tell us what the term means.   But
it doesn't.  Or it doesn't clearly.

The closest it comes is perhaps 7.1 which says ...

   All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be
   published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
   a session starts.

(That is, this section is really about getting I-D's available early
enough, it isn't defining the term, but nevertheless...)

That might tend to suggest, that the "session documents" (7.1's title)
are at least a subset of "working group documents" and that those include
"all relevant documents to be discussed".

That's the kind of definition (approximately) that I have in my mind when
the term "working group documents" is used.

Another interpretation I have heard is

	anything in the I-D directories whose name starts "draft-ietf-wgname-"

which would be fine, if it didn't just immediately lead to the question
of "what documents should be given names that start ...?" with the
obvious answer being "working group documents" leaving us precisely no
closer to understanding than we were before (nor does saying "whatever
the WG or the WG chair, decides, as that just leads to "what criteria
should be used to decide" and we're no closer to understanding).

We can look at other uses in 2418 however ...

Section 2.1 (which is really about how one decides whether a WG should be
formed) says:
      Working groups require considerable effort, including management  
      of the working group process, editing of working group documents, 
      and contributing to the document text.

Similarly, 6.2 says:
	Taking minutes and editing working group documents often is performed

These suggest that "working group documents" might be limited to those
things that the working group actually edits, rather than simply documents
that are meant to be discussed (ie: read).   Of course, nothing there
suggests that this would be exclusive - that is, while I suspect that
everyone would agree that documents being edited by a WG are working group
documents, does everyone agree that only those documents count for the
label?   (That has never been my understanding of the term.)

Now certainly if we mean by "working group documents" only those which are
intended to be edited by a WG, then clearly the WG needs to be able to
make changes, and publish derivative versions.   On the other hand, if
we include anything that the WG might like to read, then clearly the
ability to make changes isn't required.

So, perhaps it would be a good idea for us, as a community, to decide just
what we're talking about, before we start to set down the rules?

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:39:46 +0200

Robert Elz wrote:
...
> what we're talking about, before we start to set down the rules?

To me a WG draft is not so mysterious. It's a draft which, however it
originated (individual submission, email, design team,...)

a) is the subject of WG rough consensus (announced by the WG chair) that 
it should become a WG draft for RFC processing of some kind

b) has been submitted as draft-ietf-wgname-* carrying the first form of the 
I-D boilerplate

I think that's necessary and sufficient.

  Brian

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT)

% Robert Elz wrote:
% ...
% > 
% > So, perhaps it would be a good idea for us, as a community, to decide just
% > what we're talking about, before we start to set down the rules?
% 
% To me a WG draft is not so mysterious. It's a draft which, however it
% originated (individual submission, email, design team,...)
% 
% a) is the subject of WG rough consensus (announced by the WG chair) that 
% it should become a WG draft for RFC processing of some kind
% 
% b) has been submitted as draft-ietf-wgname-* carrying the first form of the 
% I-D boilerplate
% 
% I think that's necessary and sufficient.
% 
%   Brian
% 

	So how do individual submissions become WG documents?
	Esp. individual submissions w/boilerplate #3?

-- 
--bill

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:54:09 +0700

Date:        Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:39:46 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | To me a WG draft is not so mysterious. It's a draft which, however it
  | originated (individual submission, email, design team,...)
  | 
  | a) is the subject of WG rough consensus (announced by the WG chair) that 
  | it should become a WG draft for RFC processing of some kind

But that gives no guidance at all.  Something has to lead the WG to
decide that a doc is, or is not, to be included.

  | b) has been submitted as draft-ietf-wgname-* carrying the first form of the 
  | I-D boilerplate

And that leaves lots of documents I'd include in the broad category of
WG docs excluded.    That is, draft-person-whatever can be a WG doc in
my mind.

But if this narrow definition of a "WG-document" is the definition,
I have less problems with the boilerplate requirements (especially the new
ones in Scott's doc which would not be a WG doc by this definition).

But I would also want it made clear that WG's are allowed to consider
(and even give time preference to) docs which aren't classed as "WG docs"
by these rules, because sometimes those docs are much more relevant and
interesting than the ones which would qualify.

In any case, this clearly shows that we do have different opinions on
what the label means.   It probably needs to be explicitly defined somewhere.
I suspect that you're defining something closer to "WG product" or
"potential WG product" than "WG documents" (eg: I'd consider the minutes
of WG meetings to be WG documents, but I wouldn't expect them to be published
in the I-D directories).

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:29:48 +0200

> decide that a doc is, or is not, to be included.

I don't believe that it's necessary to give such guidance. I think
this is something that we should leave WGs free to judge.

> WG docs excluded.    That is, draft-person-whatever can be a WG doc in

If it becomes a WG document, rename it.

> interesting than the ones which would qualify.

They can certainly discuss them. But if they want to process them
further, there needs to be a consensus and the original author(s)
need to hand over change control, i.e. apply boilerplate #1.

> of WG meetings to be WG documents, but I wouldn't expect them to be published

Fair enough. Maybe there needs to  be a distinction between what is "on the WG
record" which clearly includes all WG email and the minutes and "WG documents"
as such.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:32:17 +0200

>         Esp. individual submissions w/boilerplate #3?

By both conditions a) and b) becoming true. It happens all the time. 

   Brian

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 07:41:11 -0700 (PDT)

% >         So how do individual submissions become WG documents?
% >         Esp. individual submissions w/boilerplate #3?
% 
% By both conditions a) and b) becoming true. It happens all the time. 
% 
%    Brian

	So, given the current state of IPR protections, it would 
	be wise to have individual submissions protected by 
	boilerplate #3 until such work is adopted by the WG as IETF work.

-- 
--bill

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:52:09 -0400

> 	boilerplate #3 until such work is adopted by the WG as IETF work.

That depends on what the individual wants to do, no?  Also, use of freer
boilerplate might lead the WG to be more interested in adopting the
draft.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:00:25 +0200

>         boilerplate #3 until such work is adopted by the WG as IETF work.

that's between an individual and his/her lawyer to decide

   Brian

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT)

% On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 07:41:11AM -0700, Bill Manning allegedly wrote:
% > % >         So how do individual submissions become WG documents?
% > % >         Esp. individual submissions w/boilerplate #3?
% > % 
% > % By both conditions a) and b) becoming true. It happens all the time. 
% > % 
% > %    Brian
% > 
% > 	So, given the current state of IPR protections, it would 
% > 	be wise to have individual submissions protected by 
% > 	boilerplate #3 until such work is adopted by the WG as IETF work.
% 
% That depends on what the individual wants to do, no?  Also, use of freer
% boilerplate might lead the WG to be more interested in adopting the
% draft.  
% 

	Presuming the individual has a goofy idea and would like to float
	it for consideration but has no intention of releasing it for any/all
	derivitive works -unless- adoption is forthcoming, it seems that 
	the opening gambit is to publish an ID with boilerplate #3, as it is
	currently defined.   The next pass is to have the individuals that
	self-select themselves for WG membership can petition the WG chairs
	to approach the author with an offer to adopt such work as a WG 
	document.  If the author is agreeable, then the material is republished
	with either boilerplate #2 or #1 and under another name, thus meeting
	Brians statements on what constitutes a "WG document".

-- 
--bill

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:09:50 -0400

<hat chair=off individual=on>

My take on this is that an author who wants an IETF WG to put time
into working on a document should not waste the WG's time with
boilerplate games.  Boilerplate #3 is intended for outside work that's
being published as Informational to make it more widely available as a
service to the community by a party that has no interest in having an
IETF WG work on the doc.  Bill's describing an author who wants to
create a situation in which the WG chair has to play footsie with the
author in order to do work that both the author and the WG claim to
want done.

If there's a benefit to the community from the approach Bill suggests,
I don't see it, so perhaps somebody could explain it for those of us
who are slow on the uptake?

</hat>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:32:12 -0700

> who are slow on the uptake?

makes sense to me

randy

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:14:34 +0700

Date:        Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:29:48 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I don't believe that it's necessary to give such guidance. I think
  | this is something that we should leave WGs free to judge.

I think it is fine for the WGs to make the decisions, but if the group
"members" have no idea what criteria should be used, groups will spend
way too much time arguing about whether some doc or other meets the
various criteria that people have in their minds but aren't sharing.

That's not useful.

  | If it becomes a WG document, rename it.

That's not hard, but is more unproductive use of time.

  | They can certainly discuss them.

This gets back to the definition of what is a working group document.
Some groups I have seen simply won't allocate any productive time to
discussion (in any sense) of anything which doesn't already have that
label.

  | But if they want to process them further,

This assumes that there is a desire to progress the doc.   For some,
that is clearly the idea - but some docs are made available for
information only, with no intent that they ever be actually published
anywhere (by the IETF anyway).

kre

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:09:35 -0400

> > who are slow on the uptake?

And yet we need to make Boilerplate #3 available, so the situation will
be possible.  What's at issue is making sure the chair has an idea how
to respond.  I think this msg and the next are pointing up the need for
"draft number 3" in the charter -- advice to working groups.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:24:42 +0200

> "draft number 3" in the charter -- advice to working groups.

Exactly. There will always be cases where someone for whatever reason
wants or is obliged to use boilerplate #2 or #3 on an initial draft, even
if they are able to switch to boilerplate #1 later on. Leaving that option
open, as it is today, is essential. That's why I assert that the only
*necessary* condition is that a draft carries boilerplate #1 when it becomes
a WG draft. Prior to that moment, it's desirable, but not essential.

   Brian

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:35:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

>>b) has been submitted as draft-ietf-wgname-* carrying the first form of the 

Careful making decisions based on a string of characters:

Some WG documents began life as individual submissions, and there is a
period of transition where draft-somename-whatever exists as a WG
document. 

Also, there are instances where a WG consenus is reached for what was once
a WG document (draft-ietf-acronym-whatever), but is to be considered an
individual submission.

So, I'd respecfully suggest taking your first item and rephrasing along
the lines of 

	It's a draft which, however it originated (individual submission,
        email, design team,...) that has been accepted/adopted by the
        Working Group. 

Steve

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:13:23 +0200

below...

>         email, design team,...) that has been accepted/adopted by the

Yes, but it is only a declaration of consensus by the WG Chair that
tells us that it has been accepted/adopted.

   Brian