Subject: RE: Rechartering to focus on problem

From: Powers Chuck-rxcp20 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 07:53:22 -0700

I agree with Brian. Any "data" collected now would not reflect the impact from the clarifications to RFC2026 made by this working group, and would therefore be somewhat meaningless as a reflection of "current" problems in the IETF.

Since it seems apparent that most folks on this list are interested in identifying if real problems do exist (as opposed to assuming that they do, or assuming that they don't), then the practical approach is to wait until problems caused by the current state of RFC2026 have been filtered out, and then work to determine if any real problems remain.

To claim today that that problems will still exist or will not exist (and what those problems are) with regards to the IETF's efforts is purely speculation on the claimants part at this time, as NO ONE has any demonstrable proof under the revised documents.

Let's wait and see what impact the changes have, before rechartering.

chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Rechartering to focus on problem
> 
> 
> Such an evaluation would indeed be interesting, after we exercise
> the freshly clarified procedures for a year or so. Any evaluation 
> made now would refer to "pure RFC 2026", which some people found 
> unclear. We would be measuring the past, not the present.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> Allen Lo wrote:
> > 
> > I agree with these points.  That's why I believe it would 
> be worthwhile
> > to focus on identifying what the problems are so that the WG can
> > evaluate whether a change is appropriate and what the 
> change should be.
> > The ability (or inability) of vendors to implement 
> standards in products
> > because of IPR encumberances should be of interest to the IETF
> > (standards aren't so valuable if vendors can't implement), but
> > unfortunately this often does not feedback into the WGs 
> because the WGs
> > have completed the standards work.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:27 AM
> > > To: Russell Nelson; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: Rechartering to focus on problem
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems rather odd to propose a major change to the policies
> > > and practices
> > > of the IETF without a clear demonstration of an actual problem.
> > > It seems very odd to propose adopting a major change 
> without actual
> > > evidence that it will fix any real problem.
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2003 08:41:46 +1100

On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 01:53, Powers Chuck-rxcp20 wrote:
>I agree with Brian. Any "data" collected now would not reflect the
>impact from the clarifications to RFC2026 made by this working group,
>and would therefore be somewhat meaningless as a reflection of
>"current" problems in the IETF.

I don't agree that data collected now, regarding current IP problems in
IETF, would be meaningless to current problems in the IETF. To say this
is the case because now you've clarified RFC2026 is ludicrous. It is
simply not the case that these clarifications invalidate any problems
that exist. That sounds quite nonsensical to me.

>Since it seems apparent that most folks on this list are interested
>in identifying if real problems do exist (as opposed to assuming that
>they do, or assuming that they don't), then the practical approach is
>to wait until problems caused by the current state of RFC2026 have
>been filtered out, and then work to determine if any real problems
>remain.

Thank you for sharing _your_ point of view on what _you_ consider the
practical approach. There in fact do happen to be others on the list
that don't share your view.

>To claim today that that problems will still exist or will not exist
>(and what those problems are) with regards to the IETF's efforts is
>purely speculation on the claimants part at this time, as NO ONE has
>any demonstrable proof under the revised documents.

You are making an entirely erroneous assumption that useful data (as to
current EITF IPR problems in other (existing) WGs, of which I've read at
least one clear example on this list, from an IETF participant) cannot
be obtained due to the fact that this list has clarified the current
position.

>Let's wait and see what impact the changes have, before rechartering.

I firmly disagree with what I consider your illogic, Chuck.

Personally, having seen various cases in the media over the last few
years (Rambus, deCSS, OGG/MP3, Sklyarov put in jail for Advanced eBook
Reader, etc) - most of which are _software_ not hardware cases I might
add (and I believe that yes, software should be treated differently
since it is evidently quite different), I believe it is imperative at
this point that the IETF address these IPR issues.

My sense of what is right has me having felt outrages that fellow
software coders have been put in jail for software they wrote. I find it
incredulous and totally unacceptable.

zen

-- 
Mr Zenaan Harkness, Manager, VIDC
Phone: +678 25 151  Fax: +678 25 178  Mobile: +678 45 179
Please respect the confidentiality of this email.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:53:08 +0100

> that exist. That sounds quite nonsensical to me.

So, by measuring effects in the past few years, when people were
complaining that RFC 2026 confused them, we can discover problems
in the revised documents that we are just completing? 

It would, I think, be very useful to start objectively logging
problems from now on.

...

> incredulous and totally unacceptable.

I trust that we all agree with you. But this has absolutely nothing
to do with the IETF's intellectual property policy or this list.
If you want to raise such issues in our community, please consider the 
Internet Society as your vehicle.
(see http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/010917pr.shtml)

   Brian

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Mar 2003 10:27:07 +1100

> It would, I think, be very useful to start objectively logging

Obviously no disagreement here. Yes we can start logging problems. That
does not invalidate the view that IPR problems should be dealt with now.
Perhaps an IPR policy can subsequently be reviewed in two years to take
into account any effects raised by it, along with the current
'clarification' document.

> (see http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/010917pr.shtml)

Yes, some issues need to be dealt with through correcting legislation.

Do you believe that patents (and other IPR issues?) are not, and will
not, be a problem for Open Source/ Free Software implementations of
standards?

If so, I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you.

zen