Subject: Suggested tweaks/edits to "wg-guidelines-02"

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:43:56 -0800

Hi Scott,

A lot of these are typos or just minor phrasing tweaks,
this will look long, but I would agree that this latest
draft ("02") is getting very close to "last call" ready. 
Thanks for the work...

1. Under "Status of this Memo", first para - I believe
there's a missing space between "RFC" and "2026".

2. TOC - Section 5.7 - I'd like to suggest that perhaps
this section might be retitled as "Disclosure of Third-
Party IPR Claims" (to make it clearer what the subject
matter is).

3. TOC - Section 5.7.1 - just for consistency, (and this
applies throughout the doc...) "third party" goes to
"third-party" (with a "dash")

4. Section 1 - Introduction - Footnotes - 
might be worth considering reordering/
re-numbering the footnotes to start with #1 (but I'd
bet you were just waiting until this was going into
last call to do that?)

5. Section 2 - The Problem - seventh para (the second
bulleted para) - would like to suggest that "...covered
by their own IPR" change to "covered by its (or its
represented organization's, if any) IPR".

6. Section 3 - The Approach - minor grammar edit, suggest
changing "whether to select a technology or not in the first
place" to "whether or not to select a technology in the
first place".

7. Section 4.1 - IPS WG (IP Storage) - A missing "space" 
between "RFC" and "2945"?

8. Section 5.1 - Types of IPR - first bulleted para,
"Servicemarks" should change to "Service marks" (adding
the space)

9. Section 5.3 - IPR as a Technology Evaluation Factor - 
fourth para - Fourth sentence. Suggest changing "whatever
legal advice resources they have access to to form..."
to "whatever legal advice resources they have access to
in order to form...."

10. Section 5.4 - Patents versus Pending Patents Applied
For - second sentence, for clarity suggest changing 
"disclosure of the patent number and possibly the relevant 
document..." to "disclosure of the patent number and possibly 
the relevant IETF document...". 

11. Section 5.4 again - last sentence - this change
suggested to make this language match some used earlier in 
the doc around published patents/apps - old "All the IETF can expect
regarding a pending patent is disclosure that it exists, the related
documents, and possibly specific section numbers and...." to new
"All the IETF can expect regarding a pending patent is disclosure 
that it exists, the related IETF documents, and possibly the 
relevant IETF document sections and ..."

12. Section 5.5 - Applicability: It's Hard to Prove a 
Negative - second para, minor grammar edit - change 
"let alone proving that it is not covered by any IPR claim."
to "let alone prove that it is not covered by any IPR claim."

13. Section 5.6 - Licensing Terms - sixth bulleted para - 
suggest removing "openly specified" here, both because
I think it will confuse people as I've previously commented
elsewhere, and because Scott Bradner's recent draft deletes
it and replaced it instead with "royalty-free terms or, if that 
is not available, under reasonable...".

14. Section 5.6 again - This is a pretty substantive comment about the
paragraph that starts "There is class of restriction which involves
'reciprocity'...".
First.... I'd like to suggest that this whole paragraph rather laps
over into what would ordinarily be private discussions of RAND
terms between the parties to the license, and to that end, I think
it should come out of the draft. But... if it needs to stay in,
I think at least that there are some edits that really need to go 
into it for clarification. Rather than note all the tweaks 
individually, I'll just put what I'd like to suggest for the 
paragraph as it would appear in the re-written condition, to wit:

"There is a class of restriction which involves "reciprocity", in which
the IPR claimant's patented technology may be used by an implementer 
of the IETF standard ("licensee") as long as the licensee allows the IPR
claimant to use the licensee's own patented technology covering the 
standard under comparable terms (i.e., "bilateral" reciprocity).  
A requirement for "general" or "universal"  reciprocity is 
also possible, under which the IPR claimant makes its 
patented technology available to a licensee, as long as the licensee 
commits to allow all other implementers of the same IETF standard to use

the licensee's own patented technology covering the standard under 
comparable terms."

(I should note, Scott, that the suggested revisions above reflect the 
fact that I wasn't sure what you were getting at with the commentary
about "free" "general" reciprocity. There's a pretty standard notion
of "universal" reciprocity which is what I assumed (perhaps wrongly?)
that you were driving at, and which is reflected in the above text).

15. Section 5.6 - para starting with "Words such as 'reasonable',
'fair',
...". Just a minor consistency thing, you have an incidence of 
"non discriminatory" (missing dash) that should be "non-discriminatory"
for consistency.

16. Section 5.7 - I'd suggested above a title change to
"Disclosure of Third-Party IPR Claims" - for parallel language, I'd
also like to suggest that the first sentence of this change to "Formal
procedures for disclosures of third-party IPR claims"... Also, as 
previously mentioned, need to catch all the occurences of "third party"
(or "3rd party") and do a global search/replace with "third-party".

17. Section 5.7.1 - "Third-Party Disclosure Advice" (adding the "dash"
to the section title) - second para, for clarity would suggest changing
"... with the working group chairs before saying anything publicly. 
After discussion with the working group charis, they should..." to
"... with the working group chair(s) before saying anything publicly.
After discussion with the working group chair(s), the potential
discloser
should..."

And the following sentence, suggest changing "If they are sure.... then 
they are encouraged..." to "If the potential discloser is sure...., then
the potential discloser is encouraged..."

17. Section 5.7.1 again, third para - grammar suggestion, from "A person
thinking of third party disclosure..." to "A person thinking of making a
third-party disclosure..."

18. Section 5.7.1 again, fourth para - minor grammar edit, missing a
comma
after "substantive".

19. Intellectual Property Statement - minor typo, last sentence, 
"implementors" should be "implementers".

thanks, Val See

_______________________________________________
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 13:51:27 -0500

These all look pretty good.  I'll consult with whatever legal advisers I
can find on the reciprocity phrasing.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:52:11 +0100

Valerie See wrote:
...
> "implementors" should be "implementers".

That depends on which dictionary you use. "Implementors" is a
valid spelling, at least in the country where English was invented.

   Brian