Subject: Re: -technology - ipr queries

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:46:31 -0400

> thomas asks
> > >    (D)  Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed as
> > >       provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF Executive
> > >       Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR, a written
> > >       assurance that upon approval by the IESG for publication as RFCs
> > >       of the relevant IETF specification(s), all persons will be able to
> > >       obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other
> > >       rights with respect to Implementing Technology under one of the
> > >       licensing options specified in Section 6.5 below unless such a
> > >       statement has already been submitted.  The working group proposing
> > >       the use of the technology with respect to which the Intellectual
> > >       Property Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF Executive
> > >       Director in this effort.
> > 
> > Note: the above seems to apply only to IETF contributions the way it
> > is written. I guess RFC editor contributions are funny. But, if the
> > submitter said there was IPR, is the secretariat supposed to do the
> > normal IPR query? Or is it explicitely not supposed to?

> RFC Editor contributions are not IETF documents (other than for the
> IETF publishing the ID) - I see no reason for the IETF Secretariat
> to do anything related to IPR in them

Let me see if I can explain what I find unclear.

There is no IPR policy with regards to RFC Editor contributions once
they are RFCs. OK. Yet, all such contributions must first be submitted
as IDs. But by submitting as an ID, they have to disclose just like
for IETF contributions.

So, there is the real question of what happens if someone asserts IPR
on an RFC editor contribution. What exactly does "disclose" mean, and
what is supposed to happen? Is the secretariat is supposed to publish
something on its web page?  Your repsonse above suggests that the
secretariat should not do anything here, or at least, should not do
the same thing it does with disclosures for IETF contributions

Note, my issue is that things are underspecified here. Better to get a
clear understanding of what is expected  now, then when people ask
what they are supposed to do.

Thomas

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:22:01 -0400 (EDT)

> they are RFCs. 

to be pedantic - there is no policy *in this document* about that - 
the RFC Editor may state a policy if they want to

> the same thing it does with disclosures for IETF contributions

if the secretariat gets an IPR disclosure they need to publish it on the
web page - I see no reason for the secretariat to not do so

my response was in regards to the question 'should the secretariat send
mail to the IPR person asking for info?' and to that I suggest that 
the secretariat should not do that for non-IETF documents

the meaning of "disclose" is in the -technology document - I see no reason
that the term should have a different meaning when it comes to RFC Editor
contributions

if the text is unclear please "send text"

tnx

Scott

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:24:01 -0400

> the RFC Editor may state a policy if they want to

OK.

> web page - I see no reason for the secretariat to not do so

Agree.

> the secretariat should not do that for non-IETF documents

I do not believe this is clear in the document. I.e., it is unclear
whether Section (D) applies to IPR disclosures related to RFC Editor
Submissions. The text refering to "WGs may assist" could be read to
imply this is only about WG documents. If this is the case, I'd
suggest text something like the following:

   (D) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
      Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
      Executive ...
  
> that the term should have a different meaning when it comes to RFC Editor

Agree.

Thomas

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:31:27 -0400 (EDT)

done

--

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:24:01 -0400

OK.

Agree.

  

Agree.

Thomas