Subject: [alto] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:48:48 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-deployments/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a 2 day old (at the time of this writing) IPR disclosure. It
seems rather unusual, and I am not sure of the intent.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:59:54 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-deployments/

they are third party ipr declarations and they are in fact the product
of reviewing the document:

from the review of [email-masked] Carlos Pignataro.

Major:

1. I came across two patent applications in which the examiners add this
document as a non-patent citation. The document has no IPR disclosures,
and authors seem to have responded to IPR calls.

I will submit 3rd party disclosures for these now, there may be more:
http://www.google.com/patents/EP2913979A1#npl-citations
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:14:45 -0500

On 29 Jun 2016, at 0:59, joel jaeggli wrote:

>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

There lies my confusion. Why would a patent application that cites this 
document cause an IPR disclosure against this document? Seems backwards 
to me.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:22:41 -0700

> document cause an IPR disclosure against this document? Seems backwards

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#page-9

6.1.3.  IPR of Others

   If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
   Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
   because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
   is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
   the IETF by sending an email message to [email-masked].  Such a
   notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
   realizes the connection.

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:14:44 -0500

>    notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person

As the WG co-chair and document shephered ... so, what is the expected
process to relieve the burden of such IPR declarations and move the work
ahead?  I scanned rfc3979 but did not find any advisory text related to
such third-party IPR notifications.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: [email-masked] / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:08:27 -0500

>    notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the 

Sorry, my confusion is not the fact this is a 3rd party disclosure. It's 
more that the fact being disclosed seems to be that a third party patent 
application cites this document. Maybe I am misreading something, but 
based strictly on the information in the disclosure, that doesn't seem 
to imply a third party has IPR that may encumber the draft; rather it 
seem to imply that may build on top of this draft.

That all being said, this disclosure came in after IETF last call. I'd 
be very surprised if the working group was aware of it when they 
progressed the draft.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:14:43 -0500

On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:08, Ben Campbell wrote:

> Sorry, my confusion is not the fact this is a 3rd party disclosure. 
> It's more that the fact being disclosed seems to be that a third party 
> patent application cites this document. Maybe I am misreading 
> something, but based strictly on the information in the disclosure, 
> that doesn't seem to imply a third party has IPR that may encumber the 
> draft; rather it seem to imply that may build on top of this draft.

grumble. I can't seem to type this morning.

s/... imply that may build.../... imply that the IPR may build...

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:57:07 -0700

> s/... imply that may build.../... imply that the IPR may build...

It's not our job to judge the validity or applicability of ipr claims on
material.

You can draw your own conclusions as an individual.

I think it's responsible of the person engaging in third party
disclosure to have done so. that's about the only conclusion I would draw.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:16:18 -0500

I'm getting "no such user" notifications for Martin. His email address 
in the draft may need to be updated.

(I also get the same for Jan, who might want to consider updating his 
address in the tracker.)

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:28:30 -0500

On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:57, joel jaeggli wrote:

>>>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to 
>>>>>>> cut
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>> 1. I came across two patent applications in which the examiners 
>>>>>> add
>>>>>> this

I wasn't trying to judge the applicability so much as the intent, but I 
take your point. My real concern at this point is that the working group 
has the opportunity to decide how to proceed.

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:46:49 -0500

> has the opportunity to decide how to proceed.

Ben, all: So, is that the answer to my previous query on what is the
expected process to relieve the burden of such IPR declarations and
move the work ahead?  If it falls in the purview of the WG, then
certainly Jan and I can drive the discussions in the WG.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:28:08 -0500

(Adding Mirja directly)

> certainly Jan and I can drive the discussions in the WG.

Hi Vijay,

That's really up to the chairs and the responsible AD (Mirja), but since 
I started this:

There's not really a fixed process that I am aware of. In general, the 
point of IPR disclosures are to allow working groups to make informed 
decisions about progressing work. While the working group shouldn't try 
to determine validity, or negotiate terms, it's reasonable for it to 
discuss if they are willing to progress the draft in light of the IPR. 
Due to the timing of the disclosure, It's probably also reasonable to 
assume that the working group was not aware of the IPR at the time they 
formed to consensus to publish.

One approach might be to point out the disclosure to the alto list, and 
ask if there are objections to progressing the draft. (I am agonistic to 
whether there is a need to re-run part of the IETF last call.

All that being said,  I think the real answer is that you should discuss 
this with Mirja to decide how to proceed.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:53:22 -0500

On 06/29/2016 12:28 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
[...]
> All that being said,  I think the real answer is that you should
> discuss this with Mirja to decide how to proceed.

Ben: Perfect. Thank you.  Jan and I will follow up with Mirja and
circle back to the WG list.

Cheers,

- vijay

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:11:50 -0700

> has the opportunity to decide how to proceed.

yeah, I think that applies to any form of late breaking change of
significance.