Subject: revised IDs

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:34:06 -0500 (EST)

I've just submited updates to both submission-rights and ipr-technology.

There has been a lot of discussion on the list and I expect that I did not 
find all of the suggestions (nor did I a put in some of the suggestions
because of later comments, because they seemed to change current
practice or which I felt were not correct or in conflict with another
suggestion.)

I think these docs are getting close but there are a few issues that
are still open and I think need further discussion

one particular one comes from jck

  Section 3(A) and 3.1 are slightly inconsistent: 3(A) appears
  that there be an explicit statement that the IPR provisions have
  been exercised as part of advancing a document, while 3.1
  indicates that the existence of independent implementations  
  causes presumption that they have been exercised.  I prefer the
  former and hope it is the current practice since the practice of
  patent cross-licensing arrangements among companies makes it
  quite possible that two independent implementations would come   
  into being without exercising any provisions that would apply
  across the IETF.

there is actually no real current practice on this - we have had only
one document with IPR claims against it try to go from PS to DS since
2026 was done that I know of - and a complaint was raised in that case
the complaint was from someone who claimed IPR and claimed that the
doc could not advance because we did not have documentation that 
implementers had taken out licenses - but the implementers
(and much of the working group) felt that no licenses were needed.  
actually requiring documentation of a license when the implementer 
does not think the claim is valid can become a DoS attack 

I am not sure what to do here - when the issue 1st came up I thought
that 3.1 was right (take the fact of multiple implementations
as an indication that the needed licensing has been done (which 
could be that no licensing is actually required) 

I've changed the text to say this but it is an issue that should be
discussed.

but this does not deal with case where all implementations are by
folk with cross licensing agrrements - need ideas on how to deal with 
that case

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 17:02:19 -0500

The new version of the working group guidelines draft has been
submitted for publication.  It's currently available at
http://www.employees.org/~swb/iprwg/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt

That directory, http://www.employees.org/~swb/iprwg/ , also has previous
versions and some diffs between old versions and this one for your
viewing enjoyment.

I suggest taking this to last call at or soon after the SF meeting.  If
the group re-charters, we'll get to do more interesting work on it then.

..Scott (Brim)