Subject: comments on draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:13:26 +0200 (EET)

Hello,

First time, quick read of ipr-wg-guidelines; a few comments:

   Traditionally the IETF has tried to avoid technologies which were
   "protected" through IPR claims. However, compromises have been made
   since before the IETF was born.  The "common knowledge" of the IETF,
   that IPR-protected technology was anathema, has never dealt with the
   fact that the Internet has run on IPR-protected technologies from the
   beginning.  Nowadays the majority of the useful technologies brought
   to the IETF have some sort of IPR claim associated with them.

==> the document mainly deals with issues that have occurred of late.  I'd 
be very interested to have examples of earlier issues (from 80's, start of 
90's to mid-90's, for example).  Surely someone must have been there.

That is, I want to see the big picture of how how we've dealth with IPR in 
the past, not just how we've dealt with it recently (as I believe some 
recent actions may have been ill-chosen).

   This memo does not describe IPR procedures for document authors or
   IPR claimants.  Those are covered in two other memos, on IPR in the
   IETF [4] and submitters' rights [5]. Rather, this memo is for working
   groups that are trying to decide what to do about IPR-protected
   technology contributions.

==> "IPR-protected" -> "IPR-claimed" (or even more rewording).

Actually this is an issue that needs some thinking.  Is it ok to use 
"IPR-protected" throughout the memo, as in most cases, we're just talking 
about claims or pending claims..  However, I'm not sure if there's any 
better term..

   o  IPR is noted, by the author of a document or by a different IETF
      participant, that is claimed by an individual or organization with
      which neither an author of the document nor the participant noting
      the IPR have an affiliation.

==> this definition is complex and should really be simplified, like:

   o  IPR which is claimed by some party not authoring the document,
      but noted by an IETF partipant who has no affiliation with them.

..

   The goal of this memo is not to make rules.  It is to give working
   groups as much information as possible to make informed decisions,

==> s/It is/The goal is/, or s/. It is/, rather,/

   whether to select a technology or not in the first place. Thus this
   third memo. 

==> "thus this third memo" is too abrupt a sentence, reword.

   licensing.  This was seen as a significant potential issue, one which
   could possibly interfere with the easy development of the Internet.

==> "easy development of the Internet" sounds way too puffy.  Perhaps 
"easy deployment of the technology in the Internet" ?

Adopting an alternative would have damaged the
   Internet's health and flexibility even more than adopting a
   technology with IPR claims.

==> "health and flexibility" of Internet depends on alternative-to-PEM?  
News to me!  How come I couldn't give a damn about PEM?  I suggest
dropping this kind of layer 9 talk.

4.3 CDI WG (Content Distribution Internetworking)

   Working group participants generally thought they had a good idea
   what to expect from each other, and that the ultimate benefits of
   using the technologies outweighed the IPR issues. The working group
   participants decided not to consider IPR as an issue at all in
   determining which technologies to adopt.

==> I guess a lesson to be learned would be disbanding such WG, and go 
play elsewhere with their IPR.

Yes, as I fear that we cannot get IPR claim disclosures early enough in 
the WG formation process, the process needs to be changed so that if 
significant-enough IPR claims come up, the working group can be disbanded, 
(e.g. by the W.G, by the IESG alone or by IESG after soliciting 
comments on it.)

   o  Patents protect "inventions".  They expire (utility patents expire
      after 20 years), but follow-on patents can cover similar

==> s/patents expire/patents/

The issue is not whether a particular piece of
   technology is IPR-protected -- we use IPR-protected technology every
   minute.  The question is how much the IPR protection will limit the
   technology's usefulness in building a robust, highly useful Internet.

==> the first paragraph seems irrelevant layer 9 talk.  I'm not interested 
at all whether *some* technology I'm using is IPR-protected (e.g. CPU's, 
PC hardware, etc.etc.).  What I *DO* care about whether such technology is 
specified in the *IETF*.

 In most countries
   patent applications are published 18 months after they are filed, but
   in the USA that can be avoided if the applicant does not also file
   outside the USA.

==> what does this try to say?  "If patent is filed only in the USA, may
never be published"?  That's how it reads, to me!  Reword or god bless 
america?

   In all cases, licensing terms are a more significant consideration
   than the validity of the IPR claims.  Often, licensing terms are
   reasonable and do not limit the usefulness of the technology.  It is
   difficult to be sure about the validity of IPR claims.  If the
   licensing terms can be determined to be reasonable, then the IPR
   claims become much less important.

==> I strongly request using another word than "reasonable" as the reader
may be tricked to making an association between "reasonable" and
"reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms", which in most cases
are certainly *unreasonable* for the *Internet* (reasonable to IPR
holders, so may argue).

   If an IPR disclosure statement lists only vague terms, that doesn't

==> s/,//

Normative References

   [1]  IETF, "IPR Working Group web page", 2002, <http://www.ietf.org/ 
        html.charters/ipr-charter.html>.

==> I'd suggest moving this to an informational reference.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:07:39 -0500

Summary of reply: some of these suggestions are okay with me, but
they're all editorial.  We can talk about them, but I'm not going to try
to get a new version out in the next day.  I'll wait until I collect the
changes that will undoubtedly come up at the face-to-face meeting.

OK, on to the details.

> First time, quick read of ipr-wg-guidelines; a few comments:

Better late than never, I suppose. :-)

>    since before the IETF was born.  The "common knowledge" of the
>    IETF, that IPR-protected technology was anathema, has never dealt
>    with the fact that the Internet has run on IPR-protected
>    technologies from the beginning.  Nowadays the majority of the
>    useful technologies brought to the IETF have some sort of IPR claim
>    associated with them.
> 
> ==> the document mainly deals with issues that have occurred of late.
> I'd be very interested to have examples of earlier issues (from 80's,
> start of 90's to mid-90's, for example).  Surely someone must have
> been there.
> 
> That is, I want to see the big picture of how how we've dealth with
> IPR in the past, not just how we've dealt with it recently (as I
> believe some recent actions may have been ill-chosen).

Ethernet comes to mind immediately.  However, I don't think we should
bring the old examples in.  The handling of IPR has changed a lot over
the years.  In some ways our approach to IPR is still coalescing, even
with RFC 2026's Section 10 in place.  I agree with you that it would be
interesting, especially when formulating policy, so we don't repeat old
mistakes.  This draft is supposed to be guidelines under the policy that
is current (and if current policy changes, this draft should).  I didn't
want to go back beyond current policy to get examples.

>    IETF [4] and submitters' rights [5]. Rather, this memo is for
>    working groups that are trying to decide what to do about
>    IPR-protected technology contributions.
> 
> "IPR-protected" throughout the memo, as in most cases, we're just
> talking about claims or pending claims..  However, I'm not sure if
> there's any better term..

We've been thrashing around with those alternatives.  I try to use
"claim" when someone is "claiming" that they have intellectual property
rights regarding some technology under discussion.  You could probably
substitute "assertion" for "claim" in all cases.  The point of using
"claim" was to avoid any question of whether the claim was valid, which
is somewhat implied if you say "protected".  In the above case, I
couldn't find a clean way of phrasing the sentence in ten seconds, so I
left it, in hopes that no one would mind.  I'll think some more about
replacement text.

>       but noted by an IETF partipant who has no affiliation with them.

That definition was just expanded.  I'll streamline it.

> ==> s/It is/The goal is/, or s/. It is/, rather,/

OK

> ==> "thus this third memo" is too abrupt a sentence, reword.

Please send text.

> "easy deployment of the technology in the Internet" ?

OK.  

> dropping this kind of layer 9 talk.

"Layer 9 talk" is what a lot of this draft is about.  The draft provides
context and background for decision making.  So I'm keeping "Layer 9
talk" but will think about wording here.

> play elsewhere with their IPR.

The intended lesson is that IPR doesn't have to slow you down if you
have the right level of familiarity and trust in the group.  I'll try to
be more explicit.

> (e.g. by the W.G, by the IESG alone or by IESG after soliciting 

If *any* issue comes up, engineering, IPR, loss of interest, or
whatever, that blocks progress absolutely or makes any possible progress
close to irrelevant, working groups can disband.

> ==> s/patents expire/patents/

I suppose.

> PC hardware, etc.etc.).  What I *DO* care about whether such technology is 

First, this "irrelevant" paragraph is one of the essential concepts of
the draft.  Second, whether the technology is specified in the IETF
depends on whether the IETF picks up the technology, which depends on
how significant the IPR issues are.  Hence this draft.

> are certainly *unreasonable* for the *Internet* (reasonable to IPR

Good point.  

>    If an IPR disclosure statement lists only vague terms, that doesn't

No.  Taking out the , makes the text following "that" appear to be a
dependent clause describing "terms".  It's the second half of the
conditional.

> ==> I'd suggest moving this to an informational reference.

The working definition of "normative" is "you have to read it to
understand this document".  I wanted to urge people to read the charter
so they know where this draft fits.  Grumble.  It doesn't matter much,
but we'll see if others have opinions.  

..Scott (Brim)

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:01:09 -0500 (EST)

>         html.charters/ipr-charter.html>.

I would consider removing this temporary reference
remember the RFC will be around a very long time after teh WG web page
goes away

Scott

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:05:54 -0500

> remember the RFC will be around a very long time after teh WG web page

Good point.  OK.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:14:36 +0200 (EET)

Commenting on left-overs only.

> want to go back beyond current policy to get examples.

The policy goes back to 1996, but it seems to me the cases covered are 
more recent.

It would be interesting to see some deliberations of e.g. 1990-> issues in 
IETF standards (I'm not familiar with Ethernet but I have a hunch that 
it's more of hardware implementation issue).

Perhaps some (if issues are readily available etc.) should be put in an 
appendix, or something.

To back up folks saying like "IETF has always dealt with IPR", I'd like to
see *how* to make it better to see whether the policy is ok or whether 
we're currently sliding off the mountainside.
 
> left it, in hopes that no one would mind.  I'll think some more about

Oh, this difference between protected and claimed is ok by me -- but it 
strikes to me that in most cases in wg-guidelines, one should still use 
IPR-claimed (until, if appropriate, WG has decided to ignore the claim by 
deciding it has no basis).
 
> > ==> "thus this third memo" is too abrupt a sentence, reword.

Replace:

That doesn't help when a working group is trying to decide
   whether to select a technology or not in the first place. Thus this  
   third memo.

With:

That doesn't help when a working group is trying to decide
   whether to select a technology or not in the first place; this  
   third memo is written to help in making that decision.

> talk" but will think about wording here.

Yes, this is probably ok with wording changes.
 
> have the right level of familiarity and trust in the group.  I'll try to

I got the impression that folks in the w.g. had each IPR claims, and
weren't really all that worried about the issues.  In practise, a small
closed party making a standard in the IETF for themselves.  Considering 
the area is already at the fringe of IETF activities, I wouldn't mind 
considering whether work like that needs to be done in the IETF at all.
 
> how significant the IPR issues are.  Hence this draft.

Uh, there seems to be a vast difference between, e.g.:

 1) IETF specifying a technology (e.g. Ethernet)

 2) IETF specifying a techique (e.g. mapping some Ethernet bits from ToS 
field in IP header) which *requires* the implementation of an 
outside-specified technology to be useful.

Now, consider that the underlying technology implementation requires 
licensing, but IETF expanding on it does *not*.

Wouldn't you agree that licensing issues in "building network interface 
cards" and "making network interface cards [the building of which requires 
a license] work better with Internet Protocols [which does not require 
licensing in itself]" are entirely different?

Either I'm misunderstanding something or there seems to be some hypocricy 
to advocate encumbered technologies in the IETF.

> dependent clause describing "terms".  It's the second half of the

Yeah, I see that but an old rule is that no comma before "that" except in 
special cases.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:16:37 +0100

> Commenting on left-overs only.
...
> to advocate encumbered technologies in the IETF.

I can't quite parse that last sentence, but the fact of life is as
stated in Scott's original text. I believe that a typical laptop
computer is alleged to infringe on about 10 thousand different patents, 
and no doubt many of those infect the data path and control plane for
protocol processing. It isn't hypocritical to note that reality
and the fact that judgements made in IETF WGs have to deal with
that reality. So I support the original text.

   Brian