Subject: IETF 87 IPRbis BOF evaluation

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:48:43 -0400

I attended the IPRbis BOF.  The idea is to update the BCPs to incorporate experience from the last 8 years.  Jorge Contreras and Scott Bradner had a list of proposed changes, and they were each discussed in turn.  The discussion was much more calm than the discussion in Orlando, but this calmness did not allow review of all of proposed changes.  As a result, the BOF ended without a real conclusion.  By impression is that the I-D will be updated based on the ones that were discussed, and that discussion is needed on the remaining proposed changes.

I'd recommend a thread on each proposed change on the [email-masked] so that there is a hope of getting this stuff done before the end of 2013.
 
Russ

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:24:26 +0200

On 08/02/13 10:48, Russ Housley allegedly wrote:
> I attended the IPRbis BOF.  The idea is to update the BCPs to
> incorporate experience from the last 8 years.  Jorge Contreras and Scott
> Bradner had a list of proposed changes, and they were each discussed in
> turn.  The discussion was much more calm than the discussion in Orlando,
> but this calmness did not allow review of all of proposed changes.  As a
> result, the BOF ended without a real conclusion.  By impression is that
> the I-D will be updated based on the ones that were discussed, and that
> discussion is needed on the remaining proposed changes.
> 
> I'd recommend a thread on each proposed change on the [email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]> so that there is a hope of getting this stuff
> done before the end of 2013.

What do you think about a "use cases and experience" replacement for
3669?  If yes, I invite others to do it, since I won't get to it.

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:27:18 +0000

that possibility came up during the BOF

Scott

Scott Bradner

Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
+1 617 495 3864
1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
Cambridge, MA 02138
www.harvard.edu/huit

On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
 wrote:

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

---

From: tsg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:59:56 -0700

Scott/Chair/All -

The real issue here is that IETF technology licenses are broader than 
the use recommendations are and that is the core-failing of the current 
model. Further there is no teeth in the IPR process because it cannot be 
used to pull technology or mitigate that 
publication-and-open-license-to-use after the publication.

If anything is to be done about IPR then the licensing agreements need 
to be changed to address the following 3 (three) key issues:

1)    Type of Use License must be specified so that if a USE RULES 
specification document is produced by any team and approved with the 
technology, that it will moderate the licensing rules.  That is to say - 
a license must be supported that says IPR is more important that 
Creating Genesis here. IPR and the legal issues of who owns the IP are 
key to all aspects of this technology. As such the licensing must be 
included in the IP.

2)    Any IPR controlled rights to IP produced inside any org like the 
IETF needs a formal withdrawal process and a mechanism to revoke use 
rights.

3)    Licensing for use of IPR must (MUST) be able to control future use 
- meaning that the IETF one-way-publication-to-global-use-licensing 
models must be controllable under global IP law after AIA and the First 
to File changes in US Patent Law.

Its no longer negotiable...

Todd

-- 
// Standard "perasonal email" disclaimers apply

---

From: Scott O Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:53:15 -0400

the only thing we did not get to was Harald's question on how IPR in normative references 
should be handled - we got basic consensus on all of what we thought were the open issues

Scott