Subject: RE: RF policy helps achieve unencumbered standards?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:40:32 -0400

> From: [email-masked]
> > Uh, no, sorry.  RSA was implemented and widely used in Apache prior
> > to the patent expiring.  Facts can be so inconvenient ...
> 
> There were no legitimate Open Source implementations. I remember having
> to pay an awful lot to Red Hat for a licensed version, even though I was
> never going to use the Red Hat software, and in fact I don't run Red
> Hat.

Let's see ... when the facts are in your favor, argue the facts, when the
law is in your favor argue the law, else change the subject ... needless
to say, Bruce changed the subject.  The original text that I responded
to was:

> It comes down to the definition of "useful".  I thought it was already 
> established that patented IETF standards are not useful, because they
> cannot be generally implemented.

And that is definitely *NOT* established, as the widespread
implementation of IETF standards involving RSA prior to the patent
expiring is a counterexample ... as I said, facts can be so
inconvenient ... 

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:01:39 -0400

> expiring is a counterexample ... as I said, facts can be so

to be fair,  RSA was an unusual case, because (a) the patent was only valid in
the US because the algorithm had been published before the patent was filed,
and (b) RSA had made a free reference implementation available for
non-commercial use in the US.  So in many cases there were ways to work around
the patent.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:40:11 -0400

Keith Moore wrote:
>RSA was an unusual case
	It is the "unusual" cases that are the true test of any policy.
In the RSA case, if the IETF had been using an absolute RF policy, then
it would have been blocked from issuing standards since commercial use
in the USA was encumbered. While there were "many ways to work around
the patent," those "ways" were not available to *all* potential
implementers. If one argues that we should never produce standards that
the open source folk can't implement without licenses, it would be
reasonable to argue that we shouldn't have standards that the
"commercial use" folk can't use without licenses. The "commercial use"
crowd is a pretty big one...
	Patents like those of in the RSA-Diffie-Hellman-Merkle cluster
are very rare. Most patents can be worked around much more easily than
these. The IETF policy, while it should strongly prefer unencumbered
methods, must be flexible enough to allow the development of standards
even when there are "unusual" problems -- even if those problems only
arise once in a decade.

		bob wyman

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:09:32 -0400

> 	It is the "unusual" cases that are the true test of any policy.

well, I wasn't citing this as a justification for or against the policy that
was in place at the time, but rather as an explanation for why people managed
to implement and widely deploy free software that used RSA even while RSA was
still patented.  I suspect we'd agree that these options aren't available for
most patented technologies, and thus, that the barriers to deployment of free
software using patented technologies are usually greater than they were for
software using RSA.

> in the USA was encumbered. 

but it didn't work that way, and it isn't likely to ever work that way, so
it doesn't matter.

Keith

---

From: Ami Ganguli <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Apr 2003 19:22:02 +0300

> even when there are "unusual" problems -- even if those problems only

Indeed.  A policy that allows non-RF standards if:
- there was no practical way to work around them
- the standard is considered essential
- the patents are due to expire within five years

might be a reasonable compromise.  It's flexible, but considerably
reduces the risk of encumbered standards.

But without a new WG or charter, there's no "sanctioned" place to
discuss such ideas.

... Ami.

-- 
Ami Ganguli <[email-masked]>

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:17:24 -0400

> - there was no practical way to work around them

"Practical" begs the question, of what definition of "practical" is
appropriate.  The answer we use is that working groups may consider IPR
when evaluating alternatives, just as they do any other factor, and we
give them some bits of conceptual framework to help them do so.  WGs
even consider extrapolations of the world political situation, if they
think they are appropriate in achieving the real goal, a
well-functioning, well-architected Internet.

> - the patents are due to expire within five years

I don't think you want to use explicit numbers like that unless you
really have to.  For example, suppose you're working on the first
building blocks of some infrastructure which has patents that expire in
6 years, but it'll take you 3 years before you can even think about
putting it into production.  And so on.  Single metrics are usually not
enough, and when you bring in multiple metrics the simple rules of thumb
become awkward.  So we just say that a WG can take how soon patents are
going to expire into consideration.

> But without a new WG or charter, there's no "sanctioned" place to

The thing to do, actually, is to submit drafts, and get them turned into
informational RFCs.  Use the process to build agreement.  Informational
RFCs can be powerfully persuasive.

    "If analyzed by the wise, they are found to be very meaningful.  If
    heard by the dim-witted, they are easy to understand.  As they
    condense the vital points, they are easy to remember.  Just the
    right length, everything is coherent and connected from beginning to
    end.  They are delightful to the ear, and whatever words he uses,
    hard or gentle, they become of 'one taste' with the instructions,
    and so captivate the minds of all, whether wise, confused, or
    somewhere in between."  (Dodrupchen Jikme Tenpe Nyima's biography of
    Patrul Rinpoche.) 

..swb

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:16:51 -0400

Ami Ganguli wrote:
> might be a reasonable compromise.  It's flexible, but 
> considerably reduces the risk of encumbered standards.
> But without a new WG or charter, there's no "sanctioned" 
> place to discuss such ideas.

	The draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines contains a detailed and clear
listing of the order of preference for unencumbered technologies in
section 5.6. The document also provides "case studies" that show how and
why WG's in the past have accepted, worked around or ignored IPR claims.
Once that document is published as an RFC, we will have the policy
guidelines we need. A new charter and/or WG on this specific issue is
not necessary -- the "compromise" is in place. The proper "sanctioned"
place to debate these issues is in the individual WG's when specific
issues arise.
	One might argue that the wg-guidelines should contain strongly
worded exhortations which emphasize the importance and utility of
avoiding encumbered methods whenever possible. However, this is more a
question of style than substance. The prejudice against encumbered
methods is clearly stated, even if dispassionately, in the document as
currently written.

	bob wyman

---

From: Ami Ganguli <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Apr 2003 20:58:22 +0300

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 19:16, Bob Wyman wrote:
> The proper "sanctioned"

Are you suggesting that the discussion that's taking place on this list
should be repeated every time a working group encounters patents?

I see two problems with this:

1. Even on this list, where there's reasonable expectation of
non-technical quasi-political discussion, people complain about traffic
volume and low signal-to-noise.  Imagine what would happen when IPR
lawyers invade more technical lists.

2. It requires constant vigilance on the part of people who are
concerned about IPR issues.  They'd have to monitor every single list to
make sure non-RF standards weren't slipping by.

... Ami.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:22:56 -0400

On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 08:58:22PM +0300, Ami Ganguli allegedly wrote:
> > The proper "sanctioned" place to debate these issues is in the
> > individual WG's when specific issues arise.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the discussion that's taking place on this
> list should be repeated every time a working group encounters patents?
> 
> non-technical quasi-political discussion, people complain about
> traffic volume and low signal-to-noise.  Imagine what would happen
> when IPR lawyers invade more technical lists.
> 
> concerned about IPR issues.  They'd have to monitor every single list
> to make sure non-RF standards weren't slipping by.

The difference is context.  If you're arguing for an ideology, in a
general discussion like this one, then the conversation never ends
(ideology-based arguments never ever do).  If you're in a working group
looking at specific technology alternatives, and IPR tradeoffs are a
factor, then you have much more specific costs and benefits to evaluate,
in a specific situation.  You evaluate the specific IPR facts as you do
any other factor, including e.g. management complexity or protocol
extensibility or security.  WG participants might actually come to
agreement.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:27:30 -0400

Ami Ganguli wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the discussion that's taking 
> place on this list should be repeated every time a 
> working group encounters patents?
	No. The general policies, guidelines, procedures, etc. have been
documented and do not need to be endlessly rehashed. Working Groups
should be focused on creating the most useful standards possible -- not
debating general issues related to IPR. If problems are found in
applying the existing policies and guidelines then the logical thing to
do would be to bring them up on this list after writing an ID that
documents the specific issues and hopefully a proposed solution.

> They'd have to monitor every single list to make 
> sure non-RF standards weren't slipping by.
	This cannot be avoided. If someone has a "global," cross working
group agenda, then there is no way for them to avoid monitoring multiple
working groups. The broader the agenda, the more working groups will
need to be monitored. This requirement to monitor multiple groups would
exist no matter what the IETF policy was.

		bob wyman

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:05:05 -0700

Bob Wyman wrote:
> If problems are found in applying the 
> existing policies and guidelines then the logical thing to do 
> would be to bring them up on this list after writing an ID 
> that documents the specific issues and hopefully a proposed solution.
 
Statements like this point out how flawed the existing proposed policy
is.  Every time someone brings up a concern, the answer is "we'll deal
with it when the situation arises."  

The situation has arisen.  The open source community WILL NOT IMPLEMENT
any standard for which they must pay a patent royalty.  End of story.
You can discuss and plan to resolve this situation now, or you can hide
in your caves until the bear bites you in the butt.

The IETF patent policy does not address that issue, and ad hoc "bring it
up later" solutions are fluff statements that add nothing to the
conversation.

/Larry Rosen

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:32:27 -0400

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> The IETF patent policy does not address that issue ... 
> The open source community WILL NOT IMPLEMENT any standard 
> for which they must pay a patent royalty.
	There is no issue to address. Everyone is well aware that the
"open source community" will not implement standards that are IPR
encumbered. That is not an issue, it is an assertion of fact. This fact,
an its consequences, should be carefully considered by individual IETF
working groups during the process of determining how to proceed with
fulfilling their charters. The working groups should use the
wg-guidelines document for guidance in that process.
	It is recognized that the "open source community" will not be
able to implement some probably small number of IETF standards. That is
truly unfortunate, but apparently unavoidable. I am confident that the
"open source community" will continue to be both able and willing to
implement the vast majority of IETF standards.

	It appears that those who claim to represent the open source
community are not presenting an "issue" but are rather making a
unilateral, inflexible demand that the IETF change its existing policies
in order to address the specific needs of one specific constituency. It
is clear that nothing short of an absolute RF policy will silence this
demand. The decision has been made to retain flexibility in the
development of IETF standards. This does not mean that the "open source
community" has been ignored nor does it mean that this constituency is
not valued by many IETF members. It merely means that the needs of this
one constituency will not be permitted to override the needs of the
other IETF constituencies. You can't make everyone happy all the time.

> Every time someone brings up a concern, the answer 
> is "we'll deal with it when the situation arises."  
	There is a clear consensus against an absolute RF policy. Thus,
there is no alternative but to deal with the issue on a case by case
basis. I am aware of no general solutions that provide the IETF with the
flexibility it needs yet ensure that the "open source" community will
feel free to implement each and every IETF issued standard. I also do
not believe that such a solution either exists or can be created. The
goals at issue here are too strongly opposed to be resolved by a general
policy.

> hide in your caves until the bear bites you in the butt...
> fluff statements that add nothing to the conversation...
	Is this sort of speech really necessary? Do you really believe
that it advances your case?

		bob wyman

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:29:42 -0400

> The open source community WILL NOT
> IMPLEMENT any standard for which they must pay a patent royalty. 

then it's up to members of the open source community to object to any
specific standards which they believe are so encumbered, and not to
insist that someone else make that evaluation on their behalf.

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:21:06 +0200

On Wed 23 Apr 03 15:40, [email-masked] wrote:
> to say, Bruce changed the subject.

He addressed exactly the point at issue, which is whether there was ever an 
open source implementation of Apache using RSA, which in turn arose from the 
question of whether RAND-encumbered IETF standards are useless because they 
cannot be generally implemented.

My recommendation is that you continue your attempts at character assination, 
since your argument doesn't seem to be making much progress ;-)

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:33:51 +0200

> reduces the risk of encumbered standards.

Or just take a pass on such a standard and let a body better suited to 
promoting such things take over the work, ECMA, for example.  This way, the 
prestige of the IETF would not be eroded, while the public would still get 
some form of for-pay standard.

> But without a new WG or charter, there's no "sanctioned" place to

Yes, actually that was my original desire: not to solve all problems of 
patent policy in a week, but to help establish a forum for the necessary 
discussion.

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: Ami Ganguli <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Apr 2003 09:13:59 +0300

> patent policy in a week, but to help establish a forum for the necessary 

Yeah, that's obviously what's needed.  

But honestly, the IETF doesn't seem to be capable of addressing the
issue.  The consensus approach that works well for technical discussions
doesn't seem to work so well for issues that are, in the end,
ideological.

It's possible to evaluate technical issues relatively objectively, and
where there's no clear winner it probably doesn't matter which way you
go.

But the patent issue will always come back to whether or not you think
standards that can only be implemented in proprietary software are
useful and harmful.  Individuals will always fall on one side or another
of this issue, and there's very little chance of anybody ever changing
their mind.  Consensus will never appear.

... Ami.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:12:04 +0200

> But without a new WG or charter, there's no "sanctioned" place to

if you feel that you need a sanction to discuss ideas, you're working in 
the wrong organization.

"We reject kings, presidents and voting; we believe in rough consensus and 
running code"...

My oft-repeated advice:
Go work out a proposal with those who agree with you - IN DETAIL. Publish 
it as an I-D, and then come back and ask others to look at it.

Sanctions are for kings.

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:14:18 -0700

Keith Moore said:
> then it's up to members of the open source community to 
> object to any specific standards which they believe are so 
> encumbered, and not to insist that someone else make that 
> evaluation on their behalf.
> 

Nope, that isn't what I said.  I said absolutely nothing about
evaluating patents.  Quit confusing the topic.  I said that we wouldn't
pay royalties.  If a patent is forced upon us, with the patent owner
demanding royalties, and if we conclude then that the patent is valid or
not worth fighting, we'll simply disavow the standard and work on
something different.  

So what IETF will have accomplished is the promulgation of a standard
that our community will stop supporting, wasting your time and ours.  

And what the patent holder will have accomplished is nothing also.
Because the open source community will not pay him royalties.

And you'll end up with a private standard that only wealthy companies
can implement.  Is that truly an "industry standard" when the largest
community of developers tells you to take a hike?  Do you think such a
standard will survive?

/Larry Rosen

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:52:24 -0400

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 09:13:59AM +0300, Ami Ganguli allegedly wrote:
> issue.  The consensus approach that works well for technical
> discussions doesn't seem to work so well for issues that are, in the
> end, ideological.
> 
> useful and harmful.  Individuals will always fall on one side or
> another of this issue, and there's very little chance of anybody ever
> changing their mind.  Consensus will never appear.

All true ... if the *basis* of the argument is ideological.  If there is
a common overarching goal, then even people with different ideologies
can reach an agreement.  The White House and Beijing can cooperate to
make money.  People who are adamantly opposed to patented technology can
accept it, specifically and temporarily, if other goals like security or
Internet health are seen as important enough.  That's the way we work.
The goal of the IETF is the evolution of the Internet architecture and
the smooth operation of the Internet.  That's the unifying ideology.  If
that's your context, then IPR is just one more issue to be resolved on
the way to something bigger, and which side you come down in on a
particular case depends on what it takes to reach that bigger goal.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:10:05 -0400

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> we'll simply disavow the standard and work on
> something different.
	Frankly, I'm not terribly worried about this happening very
often since I assume that the IETF will not intentionally develop
encumbered standards except in those rare cases when there is no real
alternative (i.e. RSA-Diffie-Hellman-Merkle, etc.). In such cases, it
would make a great deal of sense for the open source community to put
their energy and creativity into solving other problems rather than
trying to implement a different and inferior solution. If, on the other
hand, members of the open source community were aware of unencumbered
solutions to the problems addressed by the IETF Working Group, I would
expect them to come forward and do their best to ensure that the IETF
standards use those unencumbered methods.

> So what IETF will have accomplished is the promulgation
> of a standard that our community will stop supporting, 
> wasting your time and ours.  
	No, I don't think it would be a waste of anyone's time. Rather,
I think that we would have the best standard possible even though it was
a standard that would not be one that could be implemented by the open
source community. Assuming that the IETF will only adopt encumbered
methods when reasonable alternatives do not exist, the lack of open
source implementations would be unfortunate but unavoidable. There would
*only* be a waste of time if the open source community pursued an
alternative implementation without presenting the unencumbered methods
to the IETF. In this case, we would have competitive standards when
competition could have been avoided.
	The solution to this problem is for the open source advocates to
become more actively involved in the IETF process and do their best to
ensure that unencumbered methods are disclosed, proposed, developed and
accepted whenever possible.

		bob wyman

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:19:15 -0700

Well and good, Bob, except that those expectations, and processes to
accomplish them, are not at all reflected in the policy.  In fact,
you've consistently ignored our request to set those expectations firmly
in the policy.  

The W3C committee recognized the situations you described.  They took
the time to build that into the system.  You don't.  In that, you've
failed.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 8:10 AM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Keith Moore'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: RF policy helps achieve unencumbered standards?
> 
> 
> Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> 	Frankly, I'm not terribly worried about this happening 
> very often since I assume that the IETF will not 
> intentionally develop encumbered standards except in those 
> rare cases when there is no real alternative (i.e. 
> RSA-Diffie-Hellman-Merkle, etc.). In such cases, it would 
> make a great deal of sense for the open source community to 
> put their energy and creativity into solving other problems 
> rather than trying to implement a different and inferior 
> solution. If, on the other hand, members of the open source 
> community were aware of unencumbered solutions to the 
> problems addressed by the IETF Working Group, I would expect 
> them to come forward and do their best to ensure that the 
> IETF standards use those unencumbered methods.
> 
> 	No, I don't think it would be a waste of anyone's time. 
> Rather, I think that we would have the best standard possible 
> even though it was a standard that would not be one that 
> could be implemented by the open source community. Assuming 
> that the IETF will only adopt encumbered methods when 
> reasonable alternatives do not exist, the lack of open source 
> implementations would be unfortunate but unavoidable. There would
> *only* be a waste of time if the open source community 
> pursued an alternative implementation without presenting the 
> unencumbered methods to the IETF. In this case, we would have 
> competitive standards when competition could have been avoided.
> 	The solution to this problem is for the open source 
> advocates to become more actively involved in the IETF 
> process and do their best to ensure that unencumbered methods 
> are disclosed, proposed, developed and accepted whenever possible.
> 
> 		bob wyman
>

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:46:44 -0400

> you've consistently ignored our request to set those expectations firmly

See Section 8 of the technology-rights draft.  I think that's as close
as you can get to describing an "expectation" and a "preference" in a
policy.  When you have multiple unquantifiable dimensions along which
you are evaluating technologies, it's hard to make an absolutely
specific rule.  For the preferences and recommendations, the main
conduit of communication is the culture, not policy documents.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:16:33 +0200

On Thu 24 Apr 03 17:10, Bob Wyman wrote:
> source community.

I'm amazed that you are willing to call an unimplementable standard the "best 
standard possible".

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:08:59 -0400

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Well and good, Bob, except that those expectations, and 
> processes to accomplish them, are not at all reflected 
> in the policy.  In fact, you've consistently ignored our 
> request to set those expectations firmly in the policy.  
	In addition to the clear preference for unencumbered methods
which is expressed in section 8 of the technology-rights draft, there is
also a detailed order of preference for different degrees of encumbrance
which is provided in section 5.6 of the wg-guidelines draft.
	Given that the preferences that you seek are dealt with in these
documents, may I assume that you are a strong supporter of their rapid
acceptance...

		bob wyman

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:37:51 -0400 (EDT)

> I'm amazed that you are willing to call an unimplementable standard the "best 

I think this is about as perfect an example of the "discussion" we have 
been having as one could have

to say that a standard is "unimplementable" if it has IPR is a *very* narrow
view of the world - 

that is not to diminish the importance of open source software in the
world but it is not *the* world

Scott

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:59:10 -0400

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> I'm amazed that you are willing to call an 
> unimplementable standard the "best standard possible".
	Such a standard might be "unimplementable" by you or others who
*choose* not to implement standards which are encumbered, however, it
remains implementable by a very large number of others.
	Various implementers may find that they are barred in one way or
another from implementing one or another standard. Some will not have
the technical skills necessary to implement a particularly complex
standard, others will not have access to necessary hardware, still
others will choose not to implement IPR encumbered standards.
Personally, I have always refused on moral grounds to implement
standards or methods that permit or facilitate automated censoring of
content... However, the fact that various bars prevent implementation by
various sub-groups of the world of potential implementers does not
permit one to broadly paint the standard as "unimplementable." The bar
to implementation is more rooted in the choices or circumstances of the
implementers than to the details of the standard itself.

>the "best standard possible"
	In the case of IPR that is broad enough that an entire
application domain is covered, those who wish to work in that domain
have no choice but to accept the encumbrance. In such a case, an
encumbered standard is the "best standard possible" since it is not
possible to produce an unencumbered standard. Fortunately, however,
patents eventually expire. Thus, the encumbrance is, at best,
temporary...

		bob wyman

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:59:33 +0200

On Thu 24 Apr 03 19:37, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > I'm amazed that you are willing to call an unimplementable standard the
> > "best standard possible".
>
> to say that a standard is "unimplementable" if it has IPR is a *very*
> narrow view of the world -

You might have a point, if open source were a small part of the world, but it 
is not.  Essentially, you say that my view is "narrow" when I complain that 
you are disenfranchising me.  Again, if it were only me, you might have a 
point, but it is not, as open source developers constitute the single most 
important group for which IETF standards are devised.

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:04:15 -0400 (EDT)

>  as open source developers constitute the single most 

clearly true for some standards and clearly not true, at least
now, for others

Scott

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:24:03 +0200

> clearly true for some standards and clearly not true, at least

Oh, oops, I have made a fundamental mistake in presuming that all IETF 
standards are supposed to be open to general implementation.

In that case, the obvious approach is, those RFC's which are thought not to 
be freely implementable should carry an appropriate designation, so that 
there is no confusion.  This information could be carried in the name of the 
RFC: e.g., RFC 1149-RAND, vs RFC 21149-RF.

At the moment, it's not at all clear, what is supposed to be freely 
implementable and what is not.

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:24:33 -0400

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Essentially, you say that my view is "narrow" 
> when I complain that you are disenfranchising me.
	You, and others like you, have chosen a particular course. Thus,
any "disenfranchisement" is self-imposed. It comes from you, not the
IETF. 
	You have the right to choose your course just as others have the
same right to choose their own course. For you to demand that the IETF
must change in order to accommodate *your* choices is simply denying
others the same right of choice that you have exercised for yourself.
This would be wrong.

> open source developers constitute the single most 
	I have always thought that it is the end users who are the "most
important group" for whom standards are developed. We developers are
only facilitators and intermediaries in this process. It is the
end-users, and their ultimate needs, desires, etc. that give this
process meaning.

		bob wyman

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:52:50 +0200

> any "disenfranchisement" is self-imposed. It comes from you, not the

It may not come from the IETF, but neither does it come from me: it comes 
from the fact that I would risk legal liability by implementing a 
Royalty-bearing standard as free software.  An MP3 encoder would be an 
example, if MP3 was an IETF standard, which thankfully it is not.

If it was, I hope you would find the ensuing criticism justified. 

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:43:23 -0400

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> This information could be carried in the name of the 
> RFC: e.g., RFC 1149-RAND, vs. RFC 21149-RF.
	IETF policy states that the IETF does not make formal decisions
on the validity of IPR claims. Branding of RFC's in the manner you
suggest would imply that a decision had been made on the validity of an
IPR claim. Thus, such branding is prohibited by current policy.
	It should be recognized that the status of IPR claims changes
over time. Everything that is encumbered today will become unencumbered
in the future -- if only because patent terms expire. Also, because
"submarine patents" exist, it will sometimes be the case that something
thought free of encumbrance at one time will later be discovered to be
encumbered. Thus, even if the IETF were to make formal decisions on the
status of IPR claims, it would still not be possible to include IPR
status in the RFC identifiers. The fact that IPR status changes over
time makes it impossible to carry a flag related to IPR status as part
of the RFC identifier since RFC's and their identifiers are immutable.
(Note: IETF practice is to replace documents, not update or version
them.)
	Even if the problems mentioned above were somehow disposed of,
we would still have to deal with questions such as the difference
between RFC's whose essential elements were encumbered and RFC's whose
optional or non-essential elements were encumbered. Then, there would be
RFC's that had only some of many optional elements encumbered... This
could become a very complicated naming scheme very rapidly...

		bob wyman

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:24:01 -0700 (PDT)

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
> to say that a standard is "unimplementable" if it has IPR is a *very* narrow

Scott,

How about "we have no assurance whatsoever that the standard is legaly
implementable by any small or medium sized enterprise". We don't even
have to mention Open Source. Among other things contributing to this
"unimplemetability", we have not sufficiently defined "reasonable and
non-discriminatory".

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:08:01 -0700

Bruce Perens wrote:
> How about "we have no assurance whatsoever that the standard 
> is legaly implementable by any small or medium sized 
> enterprise". We don't even have to mention Open Source. Among 
> other things contributing to this "unimplemetability", we 
> have not sufficiently defined "reasonable and non-discriminatory".

It is even worse than that.  We have no assurance whatsoever that
software implementing the standard can be *used* by customers, and the
customers are at risk every time they use an encumbered standard where
nobody has paid the royalty for that use.  

Remember that patent owners have the right to exclude others from
making, *using* and selling....  

/Larry

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:13:04 +0200

> that our community will stop supporting, wasting your time and ours.

the missing leap of faith here is that you assert that all standards 
disavowed by the open source community are useless to the IETF.

this is not intuitive; I don't think it's even true.
If you write down the list of standards disavowed by the open source 
community, and post it here, we can talk again.

                     Harald