Subject: Re: IPR disclosures: stds track vs all IETF documents?

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:10:38 -0700 (PDT)

>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
PS> Triggered by a private comment, I'm not really sure whether IPR
PS> disclosures should be filed by all IETF documents or just standards
PS> track documents;
[ ... ]
PS> It seems to me that RFC2026 10.4 would require IPR disclosures only
PS> for standards track documents (but I could have missed something),
PS> while in submission rights -05:
PS> 
PS> 3. IETF Actions
PS> 
PS>    (A)  When any intellectual property is disclosed, with respect to
PS>       any technology, specification, or standard described in an IETF
PS>       document in the manner set forth in sec 6 of this document, the
PS>       IESG shall require that the document has a note indicating the
PS>       existence of such claimed intellectual property rights.
PS> [...]
PS> 
PS> Which is it?
PS> 
PS> (IMO, having to disclosure also non-stds track documents seems very
PS> sensible -- with a possible exception to the documents to which the
PS> IETF does not have the change control.)

>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Scott  Bradner wrote:
SB> see the Note Well note (http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html)
SB> this was clarified a few years back with the publication of the
SB> Note Well note

What the "Note Well" note says is:

   All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed
   to the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026,

and the conclusion I would draw from these words is that IPR notices
are required only in standards-track documents, since that is what
RFC 2026 10.4 says.  I think that has been the conclusion of a number
of other people, too;  here is one example that came up when we were
reviewing <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt> on the mreview
mailing list:

>>>>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
BW> - Sect 3 talks about need for IPR section.
BW>   I believe such is only required for stds track and bcp docs
BW>   It is allowed in other docs, but not required I think.

As a result of this comment the language in section 3.4 of
<draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt> states that
the IPR notices must appear in each MIB document that is destined
for the standards track.  (That language will be updated, of course,
after all the smoke has cleared.)

I do agree with Pekka Savola that requiring an IPR notice in all
documents, as stated in <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-05.txt>,
is the right thing to do.  But I think that it represents a change
from current practice -- it is not just a clarification.

//cmh

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:36:05 -0400 (EDT)

> are required only in standards-track documents, since that is what

IPR text was mandated in Stds track documents in 2026 but
this has not been done in any regularity in reality

but I see no reason that having the same text in any RFC where 
IPR disclosures have been received would be a change to the rules, its
just being polite  (this is what is in teh current document)

note that the question about including the IPR text in RFCs is
not the same issue as requiring IPR disclosures for non-stds track
documents (which has been at least my assumption for quete a while
since a non-stds track doc can later become a strds track doc and
because people do implement info and exp IDs)

Scott