Subject: Re: WG IPR guidelines (draft-brim-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt)

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:55:45 -0400

In message <62417730.1035206544@localhost>, John C Klensin writes:
>One more comment on this, then I'll drop it.
>
>--On Monday, 21 October, 2002 12:00 -0400
>[email-masked] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 05:19:46PM -0400, John C Klensin
>> allegedly wrote:
>>> The "note" I'm referring to is the entire last paragraph of
>>> section 1, where "encumbered technology contributions" are
>>> explicitly called out.
>>> 
>>> Suggestion:
>>> 
>>> (i)	In the abstract, change "how IPR issues" to "how IPR
>>> 	issues, especially those concerned with encumberances on
>>> 	the use of technology".
>> 
>> I can't see the usefulness of adding this text, either in the
>> abstract or in the last paragraph of section 1.  Working
>> groups will only be impacted by technology-related IPR.
>> That's all that will appear in their umwelt.  Since they won't
>> have to discriminate between technology-related and
>> non-technology-related IPR, adding the extra words would just
>> make the draft harder to digest without adding anything
>> useful.  IMHO.
>
>Actually, as has been discussed in an earlier subthread, WGs
>have been "impacted" several times by arguments about rights to
>the text they propose to put in their documents.  Several of our
>current practices -- parts of the "Note Well" text and the
>attempts to clarify rights in I-Ds included-- have been
>influenced by those disputes about, e.g., whether a WG has the
>right to lift text out of an I-D while changing editors.
>Draft-brim-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt doesn't seem to addresses
>that set of issues (nor do I think it should) and it is exactly
>that intentional omission which I'm trying to get clarified.
>

John, I'm a bit confused here.  If things like "who owns the text in a 
working group I-D" have been problematic in the past, why shouldn't it 
be in this document?

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

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

---

From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:06:08 -0400

John, something I missed the first time around (and cc to everyone just in
case) ...

> >that intentional omission which I'm trying to get clarified.

Don't use draft-brim-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt (which was only sent to the
list and never published).  For consistency, use
draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt, which is slightly different.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:13:55 -0400

--On Tuesday, 22 October, 2002 16:55 -0400 "Steven M. Bellovin"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> That's all that will appear in their umwelt.  Since they
>>> won't have to discriminate between technology-related and
>> have been "impacted" several times by arguments about rights
>> to the text they propose to put in their documents.  Several
>> of our current practices -- parts of the "Note Well" text and
>> the attempts to clarify rights in I-Ds included-- have been
>> that set of issues (nor do I think it should) and it is
>> exactly that intentional omission which I'm trying to get
>> clarified.
>> 
> 
> John, I'm a bit confused here.  If things like "who owns the
> text in a  working group I-D" have been problematic in the
> past, why shouldn't it  be in this document?

Because 

	* it should be in Scott's document about submissions, 
	
	* this document doesn't really talk about that subject,
	and because 
	
	* confusion among rules that apply to the rights in the
	actual technologies that this doc does cover and those
	copyright issues is one of the major areas in which we
	have had problems with 2026 in the past.

My hope is that, by separating the two, and being very explicit
about what each document covers, we can make progress toward
clarity.

    john

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:04:49 -0400 (EDT)

>         * it should be in Scott's document about submissions, 

agree

Scott