Subject: Re: last call -- again

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:54:57 -0400

In message <006001c33aa1$114ab440$020aff0a@tsg1>, "todd glassey" writes:
>Steven, the only problem with that is that no possible informed consent can
>be gotten from a process that is woven between any number of documents. If
>the individual submitter has to follow the convoluted path through the half
>dozen document already required, and then the three or four new IPR
>documents, there is no possible way that anyone less than a brain surgeon
>will be able to navigate this contract.
>
>So how will the IETF address this? here again, I want to reiterate that a
>"submitters release" would indeed address these problems.One that say's 'I
>have read all the requirements and understand that this filing triggers
>"blah blah blah"?, oh and that I have the right to post this too'.
>

I hear you.  In fact, I've heard you on this repeatedly; you've
made the same point quite a number of times.  I haven't seen any
particular outpouring of support for you on this point, and I quite
disagree that having one normative document instead of two makes
any difference.  But I'm willing to be persuaded, especially on
the first point, if others agree with you.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

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

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:40:52 -0400

Todd Glassey wrote:
>a "submitters release" would indeed address these problems.
	We have no evidence that a "submitter's release" would be either
useful or necessary. Todd's continued insistence on this point isn't
terribly useful since it isn't backed up by anything other than passion
and repetition. The closest we've gotten to actual "evidence" is the
insistence that such evidence would be forthcoming if we only "spoke to
attorneys"...
	Before we start creating a new process, those who support the
new process should first provide detailed descriptions of the actual
problem and describe the reasoning behind the suggestion that the
"submitter's release" would be useful. It would be very useful, for
instance, to hear of specific cases of litigation against organizations
like the IETF which would have been avoided by a "submitter's release".
If it is the case that no such litigation has actually occurred in the
past, then it would be useful if someone could point out which laws or
precedents provide the foundation on which future litigation might be
based.
	If it ain't broke, don't fix it. At this point, we have no
evidence, other than one individual's unsubstantiated concerns, that
anything is broken. We should not hold up the last call for this.

		bob wyman

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:19:39 -0400

Todd,
I (and probably many other people) understand that you feel the current 
definitions do not work. I suppose you might be right.  However, my best 
judgement, most other participants best judgement, and the best judgement 
of the lawyers we have heard from is that in terms of the current 
procedures and the legal liabilities it introduces your understanding is wrong.

We collectively have to make a decision on how to describe what we do.  We 
have done so.  Your concerns have been listened to and considered.

I am only bothering to write so that the chair and the list see more 
confirmation that you do not represent the "unspoken voices" on the list.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 08:41 PM 6/24/2003 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>Steve I guess what tweaks me the most is that I feel that this is not an
>issue of "what people feel best with", but what the organization needs, and
>that's where we differ. I think the global problem with this mindset is that
>the IETF is not any one person and so it needs to be dealt with as an
>organizational issue. This is not about a bunch of technologists getting
>together to try to implement something that meets some set of nebulously
>defined IP requirements, but again what the organization needs to present a
>fair and reasonable effort.
>
>The problems with the IP Release process as it exists today and as the
>additions propose, is that it is ineffectual. There is no possible way that
>with today's processes or the proposed additions to the release process that
>anyone would actually know whether the person submitting the material is who
>they claim to be. Or that their sponsors have authorized them to be a
>participant in the IETF but more importantly to release their IP into the
>IETF which is what we are trying to codify a process for dealing with now.
>
>I am sorry that you disagree with me about that the needs of the
>organization are more important than the flavor of the process to achieve
>them. But its true...
>
>So lets look at this anyway - say you implement this process, what do you
>say to people who already have works submitted under the old operating
>rules? and will they have to conform to the new policies if they are
>mid-standards track or not? these and any number of other really painful
>questions still await answering in this effort before anything should be
>done about last calling anything IMHO
>
>
>Todd
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
>To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:54 PM
>Subject: Re: last call -- again
>
>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:27:22 -0700

Thanks Joel, considering the chasm between my beliefs and those of the rest
of the group that is all I can ask for.

Thanks!

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: last call -- again

> > > >Steven, the only problem with that is that no possible informed
consent
> >can
> > > >be gotten from a process that is woven between any number of
documents.
> >If
> > > >the individual submitter has to follow the convoluted path through
the
> >half
> > > >"submitters release" would indeed address these problems.One that
say's
> >'I

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:41:50 -0700

Todd