Subject: RE: FW: <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06.txt>

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:10:19 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: dinsdag 3 juni 2003 2:58
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: FW: <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06.txt>
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 05:09:27PM +0200, Bert allegedly wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > Sect 5 tells people that RFC-Editor will add text for the required
> > IPR statements for stds track RFCs.
> > 
> > I contend that it is is much better to have authors/editors add that
> > text in their Internt-Drafts, so that it gets seen during WG and 
> > IETF Last Calls, so that whoever believes that he/she needs to 
> > comment is clearly pointed out that they need to think about it.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Bert 
> 
> But the goal is clarification of current policy & procedure.
> 
And as far as I know, the CURRENT policy and procedure is that the
editors authors MUST include the IPR text in the I-D that they submit
for stds track consideration. We (IESG) were not always as strict in 
checking it... but it IS the current policy.

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 07:23:40 -0400 (EDT)

> for stds track consideration. 

2026 says the IPR notices need to be there in the RFC, it does not say how they 
should get there

the proposal in the current draft (which was talked about during
the last face to face session) is to make the process reliable

fwiw - I do not think the inclusion of the text in the ID in last
call would make any difference in the area of getting people to
send in disclosures of IPR - adding a 'call for IPR' to the last
call might 

note that I did have the latter in one revision of the ID but
removed it when it was ponted out that it would be a change in 
process which these documents are not supposed to do - but I
think teh IESG could decide (on their own) to add such a 
call for IPR without violating rfc 2026

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:47:39 +0200

> 2026 says the IPR notices need to be there in the RFC, it does not say how they

The IESG could enforce this provision by enforcing the ID-nits
requirements. It's in there.
> call for IPR without violating rfc 2026

Why don't we decide whether we like Pekka's draft on that question?

   Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:54:47 -0400

> Why don't we decide whether we like Pekka's draft on that question?

Is that in-charter?

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:10:46 +0300 (EEST)

> > Why don't we decide whether we like Pekka's draft on that question?

Difficult to say, but if it gives you warm feelings, ipr-template isn't 
either -- and bam, suddenly it's a working group draft :-)

-- 
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, 04 Jun 2003 13:40:54 +0200

> either -- and bam, suddenly it's a working group draft :-)

well.... the difference when it comes to last-call time between a WG draft 
and an individual draft is that of 2-week vs 4-week Last Call....

in this case, if draft-pekka had drifted in from the great unknown, the 
IESG would no doubt have asked the IPR WG whether it wanted to have an 
opinion on it; we routinely do that to individual submissions where 
publication is requested on technology issues.

But the chairs are allowed to decide WHEN they want something to be 
considered - since they are busily trying to ascertain consensus on every 
last letter of the -technology, -submission and -guidelines documents, I 
can see them wanting to delay debate on draft-pekka until we get those 
suckers out the door....

Chairs, are you going to tell us about the list of open issues we need to 
resolve on the drafts-at-hand before recommending their transfer to the 
IESG?

                    Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:15:26 -0700

Brian -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: FW: <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06.txt>

> > send in disclosures of IPR - adding a 'call for IPR' to the last

The two issues to separate are as follows:

    1)    Are we trying to protect the IETF from indemnity in its hand in
publishing IP's

and/or

    2)    Are we trying to protect the IETF from liability in the use of the
IP's by some adopter?

They are two separate types of liability, and IMHO the current solutions
fail to address either of these issues.

The problem with the first instance is that in fact most all submitters of
IP's dont own the IP's they submity. Their sponsors do.

And in my instance, I probably am one of a maybe a hundred in the thousands
of RFC's and the perhaps ten thousand ID's submitted that actually owns the
IP's under my submissions.  And what I am pointing out is that we all know
we dont have power of attorney for our companies (except in a few instances)
but that the current process forces us to assert we do qwhich is essentially
fraud in my humble opinion.  If this is true, then what this means is that
there are thousands and thousands of documents filed for which the IETF has
no culpable releases.

In the instance of the second issue - that being of notification to the
adopter, the obvious answer is a piece of boiler plate prominently a part of
the heading of the RFC that says that the IP issues must be resolved by the
adopters and that the IETF takes no liability for the fitness of the
publication on those grounds.

> Why don't we decide whether we like Pekka's draft on that question?

With what I have suggested above - are Pekka's Draft's suggested changes
really necessary?