Subject: Re: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:43:01 -0400 (EDT)

the race condition was discussed in relationship to sec 6.2.1 but
I do not recall that it came up in relationship to the boilerplate
statement 

> I cannot file an IPR notice without a posted draft to file it
> concerning,

actually you can but it sure makes more sense when it points to an 
ID or RFC (but saying that Cisco patent 12345678 relates to the 
discussion currently under way in the foo working group is something 
that I think has been done before and would make sense to me
(though I'm not sure the disclosure template covers the case)

I'm not sure how serious an issue the race condition in the boilerplate
is since I think someone would be hardput to show bad intent if the
disclosure was filed at the same time or within a day or so of 
the ID being sent in  (Jorge maybe you can comment)

Scott

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

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:24:20 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:52 PM
> To: Scott Bradner
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Issue found in RFC 3667 text
> 
> 
> At 10:43 PM 04/27/04 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote:
> >I'm not sure how serious an issuethe race condition in the 
> boilerplate is 
> >since I think someone would be hardput to show bad intent if the 
> >disclosure was filed at the same time or within a day or so 
> of the ID 
> >being sent in  (Jorge maybe you can comment)
> 

Bad intent is not the issue. Filing a day or so after the Idraft is
submitted is inconsistent w the literal language of this boilerplate, which
says IPR claims "have been disclosed". For that reason, this should be
changed to be consistent with 3668 which says

   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an
   Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file.

We worked hard on that langauge and the template (which was doenm w/o
consulting the IPR WG) should be consistent.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:49:34 -0700 (PDT)

Robert Barr and I were discussing, and concluded that there is an error
in the language required by section 5.1 of RFC 3667. Consider the
text:

   "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
    with RFC 3668."

I cannot file an IPR notice without a posted draft to file it
concerning, and this statement says that at the time I post it I have
already revealed all IPR known to me. In communication protocol design,
we refer to this as a "race condition."

There is also another issue with it; IPR is generally not granted for
years after filing, the contents of the filing are confidential, and
one doesn't know what subset of the claims in the filing will be
granted. So this, I believe, requires me to not file an internet draft
describing any algorithms concerning which I may have filed for IPR
claims until those claims have been granted or denied and I can talk
about my IPR.

The claim is also inconsistent with RFC 3668, which states:

6.2.1.  Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.1

   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made
   as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published
   in an Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on
   file.

Is this what was intended?

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:51:46 -0700

At 10:43 PM 04/27/04 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote:
>I'm not sure how serious an issuethe race condition in the boilerplate is 
>disclosure was filed at the same time or within a day or so of the ID 

Robert is most concerned about the file point, the fact of being out of 
kilter with 3668. From my perspective, the big issue is the fact that I 
might have filed and I can't talk about that. But we already had that issue.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:22:59 +0200

Now we've opened that piece of text, I not only agree with
Fred and Robert, but I also object to the use of the personal
pronoun "I". Firstly it is inappropriate when there is more
than one author or editor.  Secondly, the word "certify" is
one that may cause some people to end up consulting their
corporate lawyers. In my view we should revert to the passive
tense as in the old boilerplate:

"Any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which the author(s) are
reasonably and personally aware have been or will be disclosed, and any
of which they become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668."

     Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:40:12 +0300 (EEST)

> we refer to this as a "race condition."

This is probably more bug in our ipr notifications process than in the 
text itself.

If you send in an IPR notice relating to draft-surname-foo-00.txt,
you've fulfilled your obligations when you send in
draft-surname-foo-00.txt to [email-masked].  I don't think
anything in the policy requires that you send in your internet-draft
only after the IPR notice has been filed at the web site, right?

In other words, you can send the notice at 13:00:00, and send the
draft in to internet-drafts@ at 13:00:01, and you'd fulfill your
obligation to the letter.

The main point appears to be whether the IETF executive director
requires that the draft has been published before accepting an IPR
note about a draft; IMHO, this should not be required, or one should
be able to say "to-be-published draft-surname-foo".

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:50:51 -0700

--On 27. april 2004 19:51 -0700 Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> t 10:43 PM 04/27/04 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote:
>> I'm not sure how serious an issuethe race condition in the boilerplate

I believe we decided most explicitly that if you can't even say "I may have 
IPR here", you can't participate in the discussion. That's the essence of 
the attempt to avoid undue influence by holders of submarine patents.

We DO have existing practice of filing IPR disclosures that say "Company X 
has an unpublished application for IPR that relates to section Foo of 
document Bar, please contact XXX if you need more information". Which 
complies with the documents, and serves an useful "heads-up" purpose.

Re the original subject of this thread (the race condition): This should be 
filed as an errata on RFC 3667. The intent of the WG was completely clear 
in list discussions (allow filings of IPR within reasonable time (days) 
after I-D publication), and the fact that the RFC does not reflect the WG 
consensus is a bug.

My opinion.

                    Harald

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:28:32 -0400

In message <481841671.1083145851@halvestr-w2k1>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes
>the attempt to avoid undue influence by holders of submarine patents.

Yes.  This was an explicit decision by the WG -- if you can't talk 
about your pending patent applications, you can't try to get your 
technology adopted.
>after I-D publication), and the fact that the RFC does not reflect the WG 
Agreed.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:30:55 -0700

> complies with the documents, and serves an useful "heads-up" purpose.

Jorge - Cant it be argued that this publication of this statement
constitutes "a viable public notice of this IP's existence" which then
topples the first domino by starting the IP timers in Japan...

If so, is this really a wise requirement since it obviously damages any
effort that is under-development.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:18:51 -0700

At 09:50 AM 04/28/04 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Re the original subject of this thread (the race condition): This should 
>be filed as an errata on RFC 3667. The intent of the WG was completely 
>clear in list discussions (allow filings of IPR within reasonable time 
>(days) after I-D publication), and the fact that the RFC does not reflect 
>the WG consensus is a bug.

So what is the correct text that every new internet draft should start with?

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:13:09 -0400

> the ID being sent in  (Jorge maybe you can comment)

I had assumed that was the expected procedure.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:54:42 +0200

Fred Baker wrote:
>> Re the original subject of this thread (the race condition): This 
>> should be filed as an errata on RFC 3667. The intent of the WG was 
>> completely clear in list discussions (allow filings of IPR within 
>> reasonable time (days) after I-D publication), and the fact that the 
>> RFC does not reflect the WG consensus is a bug.
> 
> 

My proposal from yesterday was:

Any better suggestions?

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:30:46 +0300 (EEST)

> of which they become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668."

Yes; keep it as is, but fix the IPR note procedures.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:43:19 +0200

> Yes; keep it as is, but fix the IPR note procedures.

Pekka, that isn't the answer. You have no concept of how long it takes
to negotiate the fine details of disclosures with corporate lawyers.
Fixing the way the IETF handles incoming notices is not the point.

If you want critical documents to be submitted before the I-D cutoff
date, there has to be some wiggle room here. The boilerplate above
provides that wiggle room. The boilerplate that slipped into 3667
does not do so and is therefore not an example of running code. My
mistake for not noticing it at Last Call, but it isn't in the spirit
of the discussions in the former WG.

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:41:22 +0300 (EEST)

> Fixing the way the IETF handles incoming notices is not the point.

When you get a fine idea you want to document, and consider finding 
enough time to write it just before the cut-off date, go talk to the 
lawyers then, not at the cut-off date ?

> provides that wiggle room. 

It also provides (too much) wiggle room to the other direction.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:49:02 -0700

Then Brian - What specifically are the goals of the program ???- can we list
them as a bulleted list so that we can decompose the DRAFTS to see how well
they meet the objectives of the Goals...

Todd

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:30:28 +0200

Now we are rehashing discussions that we had before finalising
RFC 3668. And the underlying problem is that the boilerplate
included in 3667 is not a simple reference to 3668.

So here is another attempt at boilerplate.

    This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
    all provisions of RFC 3668.

Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:14:36 +0300 (EEST)

>     all provisions of RFC 3668.

A fundamental reason for revision, I thought, was to make it much more 
clearly to the contributors what their obligations are.

This kind of boilerplates aren't going to help with that.  The current 
text is pretty good in that regard: I think it should wake up the 
writer..

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:26:57 -0700

I agree that rehashing 3668 is inappropriate but  your other suggestion  was
better

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:30 AM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: Fred Baker; [email-masked]

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:06:39 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

> clearly to the contributors what their obligations are.

The Term Of Art "Contributor" is one of the problems. The assumption is that
the person submitting the material owns it and can release the IETF from its
obligations to not-step-on privately owned IP's... The problem is real
simple. The "person submitting the work for publication" likely does not own
the Work Product  and so cannot legally represent the "IP Owners" without a
release of some sort.

T