Subject: RE: Request for re-charter of the IETF IPR working group

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 07:14:24 -0800

> Could  you imagine  the initial  TCP/IP stack  implementation Berkeley
> Unix  using  a non-RF  license  ?  RAND is  not  a  motor to  standard
> implementation, it slows down the usage of the standard.

The IETF is in charge of the TCP/IP specifications, not the implementation. In any case, I think you are not getting Brian's point. The IETF is an engineering organisation, in which we tend to "not fix it if it is not broken." If you look at the IETF record, there is no indication that anything is broken. You will be hard put to give us an example of an IETF standard who would have been more successful if our IPR policy had been radically different. And you will certainly not convince us that trading the procedures we have tested for more than 10 years for the procedures that the W3C has yet to implement is a sane engineering decision.
 
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Alexandre Dulaunoy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:56:29 +0100 (CET)

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Christian Huitema wrote:

> The  IETF  is  in  charge  of the  TCP/IP  specifications,  not  the
> implementation. In any  case, I think you are  not getting Brian's
> point. The IETF  is an engineering organisation, in  which we tend

Yes,  that's  right   the  IETF  is  an  engineering   org  to  create
specification. The point was regarding the implementation, you have to
follow the specification done by  the IETF (under a specific team with
a specific consensus). People doing implementation follow the document
done by the IETF. 

Ok, I'm fully agree with you on that point. 

The work  of the  IETF permits a  better technical integration  of the
Internet with all the different aspect (from Software to Hardware). 

By doing so, the people  doing the implementation follows the document
and  the related recommendation/information  (for example  the current
IPR  notes). Now, more  and more  information are  available regarding
some IPR  notes (f.ex: Software Patents). So  Free Software developer,
Scientific  Researcher  and  SME   are  reluctants  to  implement  the
specification provided by  the IETF not for a  technical point of view
but for a legal issue. 
 
Creating  standard that will  only be  implemented (for  other reasons
than technical ones) by a part of the community is not for the overall
interest. (Maybe  the issue  could be also  discussed at ISDF  and the
general objective of ISOC/IETF)

> to "not  fix it  if it  is not broken."  If you  look at  the IETF
> record, there is  no indication that anything is  broken. You will

Yes, you are right because you cannot measure that for the moment. The
problem is  only at the early  stage (check the IPR  notes and related
dates).  (but there are already some well-known issue like VRRP,...)

> be hard  put to give us an  example of an IETF  standard who would
> have been  more successful  if our IPR  policy had  been radically
> different. And you will certainly not convince us that trading the
> procedures  we  have  tested  for  more  than  10  years  for  the
> procedures that the W3C has yet to implement is a sane engineering
> decision. 

On a  historical side, the  RF policy is  older than anything  else in
Computer Science. We  should make a graph regarding  the claims around
the first RFCs/IDs and the last. (I'm maybe wrong) 

I hope  this clarify the  position and I'm  open to the  discussion on
that subject (maybe on ISDF?). 

Have a nice day. 

adulau

-- 
--			      Alexandre Dulaunoy -- http://www.foo.be/
--         http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBCD
"People who fight may lose.People who do not fight have already lost." 
							Bertolt Brecht

---

From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:11:43 -0500

There is this explosive growth in IP claims, and also a growing awareness of 
the problems of needing standards that are open and non-proprietary.  The 
current USPTO consultation on the WIPO SPLT treaty, and the treaty 
negotiations themselves provide an excellent opportunity to propose some 
fundamental changes in global patent policy that relate to standards and 
disclosures.  For example, suppose there was an agreement that in certain 
standards areas, once a proposed standard was published, globally patent 
owners would have a fixed amount of time to disclose patent claims, or be 
estopped from making such claims later.  Note here that non-US patent claims 
will become a much bigger issue if USA is successful to forcing 140 
countries to extent patents to software, business methods and other internet 
related activities, including many countries with very weak or non-existent 
examination systems.

   Jamie

-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040