Subject: RE: IPR issues in RFC 3552, etc.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:50:56 -0400

David,

[ ... EKE specifics snipped to focus on major issue ...]

> >> Is it appropriate to have statements in an RFC about the "clarity" of
> >> a party's IPR position or the licensing terms for a party's IP?
> >
> >There is currently considerable interest in improving the efficiency,
> >effectiveness, timeliness, etc. of the IETF (cf. the Vienna IESG
plenary).
> >Warning WGs away from technology areas with unclear IPR situations that
> >may consume significant time and thereby delay WG completion of protocol
> >specifications seems useful.
> 
> I noticed that you didn't directly answer that question.

IMHO, the question was poorly phrased.  RFC 3552 makes a statement about
IETF experience with an overall area of technology, as opposed to making a
statement about any specific "party".  RFC 3552 offers advice to IETF
participants about what has (or has not) worked in the past.  The IETF
has a history of documenting this sort of practice in the BCP series of
documents (RFC 3552 = BCP 72), so I agree with the IAB that the text at
issue in RFC 3552 is appropriate.
 
> Sure, we all want the trains to run on time.  If the sole interest is in
> increasing WG efficiency, then selectively rewriting or ignoring
> the rules to ban wholesale entire classes of technology, or otherwise
> dictating policy to reduce the opportunity for open discussion,
> is clearly a way to get there. But do we really want to encourage
> such solutions?

IMHO, that's seriously exaggerated.  RFC 3552 doesn't have anything to
say about a "wholesale ban."  The one attempt I know of to impose a
"wholesale ban" on this class of technologies lasted less than a day
because I objected directly to the IESG that a "wholesale ban" was
unreasonable and the IESG agreed that it was unreasonable.  I do
not believe that the IESG position on this has changed - if you
know otherwise, please explain.

[... snip ...]

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: David Jablon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:52:49 -0400

I agree with David Black's stated general principles, but ...

At 08:50 PM 8/27/03 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>[...] RFC 3552 makes a statement about
>statement about any specific "party". [...]

I disagree entirely with his interpretation of the IPR statement in 3552.
It does not provide appropriate guidance to help a WG wisely and efficiently
deal with IPR issues, in either specific cases, or in general.  ('nuf said already.)

More WG-relevant issues are in a separate reply.

-- David Jablon

---

From: David Jablon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:19:24 -0400

To tighten the focus on IPR WG issues, consider the hypothetical
case of a non-standards track document, call it RFC-X, that contains an
undesirable IPR statement.

I don't know whether there are adequate processes for correcting
such a problem, but here are some thoughts on prevention:

(1)  Defining best practice

When such a document is intended to become a BCP, and provide
guidance for the process of creating standards-track documents, it seems
like it should be held to at least as high a standard for dealing responsibly
with IPR issues as the documents it is intended to guide.

The 2026 boilerplate statement to be included in every standards track
document says (roughly) that the IETF takes no position regarding the
IPR or any license under such IPR pertaining to technology in the
document.  Such positions are found elsewhere.

It thus seems inconsistent for the IETF to make a statement
*anywhere* that can be regarded as a position on the validity, scope,
or license availability of any claimed IPR.  If such a statement were
made regarding a technology, then various problems arise, such
as what I noted in an earlier post:  A casual but vague and broadly
interpreted statement about IPR could be seen as an IPR statement of,
and thus an obstacle to the standardization of, some technology.

Upon reading draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-10.txt, I was pleased
that section 11 seems to address these concerns pretty well.

Do others agree?

One suggested addition might be at the end of the sentence
	"The inclusion of a particular IPR disclosure in a document could
	be interpreted to mean that the IETF, IESG or RFC Editor has formed
	an opinion on the validity, enforceability or applicability of the IPR."
to insert the words
	", or the suitability of license terms for the IPR".

(2)  Appropriate review

My next concern was whether processes encourage appropriate review
of statements that might be interpreted as IPR opinions.  I naturally started
thinking about the adequacy of discussion, review, appeals procedures, ...
I got a headache.

But it seems a simple courtesy to invite specific parties to review
comments that are drafted about technology or IPR in which such
parties are believed to have an interest.  Encouraging this practice
seems like generally good advice, that might prevent various
kinds of trouble, with little risk, and fits well with IETF principles
of encouraging open discussion.

Does anyone know of such advice in the new documents, or see a
place for adding it?

-- David Jablon