Subject: draft-ietf-ipr-template-02.txt

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:00:46 -0400 (EDT)

I see no reason whatsoever that this template should say anything at
all about the type of document the disclosure is about - this is
a template for an IPR disclosure and that is all it should be

thus *all* mention of "standards track" (or any other designation)
from it

note that this template also needs to cover email messages etc - so
it should not be document type specific at all

for example - sec IV of the template should be stripped back to remove the
2nd paragraph of the heading and to remove all mention of
standard or non standard track from the 1st pp - all it should
say is that it is the Licensing Declaration - no more, no less

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

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:59:52 -0700

> say is that it is the Licensing Declaration - no more, no less

Then there should be a space to clarify the scope of the licensing
declaration. Many patent holders may want to disclose IPR but limit their
licensing declarations to standards track documents. (Or more specifically,
split their licensing declaration into "wont license" for non-standards
track and "will license" or standards track)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Scott Bradner
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:01 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: draft-ietf-ipr-template-02.txt
> 
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:01:00 +0200

Scott,

> a template for an IPR disclosure and that is all it should be

Disclosures need to be specific. draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights
already expands the scope of disclosures from RFC 2026, which I
rather expect will be an issue at Last Call. We should at least
be explicit about the scope in the disclosure template.

> say is that it is the Licensing Declaration - no more, no less

That doesn't compute. I would be very surprised to see IPR holders
issuing licensing declarations covering (for example)
single lines in WG minutes, but they might well want to issue a
disclosure for such a case. A licensing declaration, if made,
needs to be specific, and I expect most of them to be restricted
to standards track documents. (And, by the way, BCP should be mentioned
for completeness.)

   Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:39:46 -0700

Robert

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
To: "'Scott Bradner'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:59 AM
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipr-template-02.txt

> track and "will license" or standards track)

what about "will license for No-Commercial Use under GNU or GPL style
licenses" and also how about the OpenSource qualifications as well.

What might work is to have several predefined sets of license terms as a
template and allow people to specify them. But since they are printing it
anyway, they could just as easily fill out some web based filuing release
form where they declared thisd as well.

todd

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:16:26 -0400

On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 08:39:46AM -0700, todd glassey allegedly wrote:
> they could just as easily fill out some web based filuing release

Yes, that's the way I expect this to go.  I hope so.  It's perfect for
PHP.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:10:35 -0400 (EDT)

> declaration.

I agree with this

Scott

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:13:40 -0700

So Scott - question - wouldn't a PHPcollab site that tracked initiatives bee
cool too? Wouldn't it be neat to be able to go to a web page and say"
Search - Open Initiative - Security Area - display by WG, and get a report
spit out that shows all the Security AD's open Initiatives (inits)??? Or
another that say's what elements of the IP portfolio required for a
standards run are missing too - whoa!.

Imagine that this could evolve to be the core of the IESG governance
mechanisms too, since all the issues of any project could be tracked. Damn ,
what was it that Jim Carey said in he Mask? "Smoooookin!".

Todd

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:30:24 -0400

On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 11:13:40AM -0700, todd glassey allegedly wrote:
> So Scott - question - wouldn't a PHPcollab site that tracked
> initiatives bee cool too? Wouldn't it be neat to be able to go to a
> web page and say" Search - Open Initiative - Security Area - display
> by WG, and get a report spit out that shows all the Security AD's open
> Initiatives (inits)??? Or another that say's what elements of the IP
> portfolio required for a standards run are missing too - whoa!.
> 
> mechanisms too, since all the issues of any project could be tracked.
> Damn , what was it that Jim Carey said in he Mask? "Smoooookin!".

Yup.  Check out the IESG "tracker" as a start.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:37:16 -0400 (EDT)

> Disclosures need to be specific.

agree

the IPR discloser can be as specific as they want to be

my problem is that the template tells them rules that do not exist

having a field that the disclosre can fill in to say the conditions
is just fine with me

> draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights
> rather expect will be an issue at Last Call

if *you* have issues please bring them up now, do not wait until IETF 
last call

Scott

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:31:21 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipr-template-02.txt

> be explicit about the scope in the disclosure template

I would rather recraft the workflow process in RFC2026.

> That doesn't compute.
> I would be very surprised to see IPR holders
> disclosure for such a case.

perhaps Note Well type disclosures should in and of themselves mandate a
formal IPR disclosure too. And start a timer for said same. What would the
penalty be for refusing to post an IPR statement once a Note Well statement
became part of the organizational record?

> A licensing declaration, if made,

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:40:31 +0200

Scott,

I believe we already abandoned the idea that the same template would be 
used for first-party and third-party disclosures. So we're not saying that 
this template should be used for everything.

I think we would be well served to have a template that is excruitatingly 
clear on how you should fill it in for disclosing IPR in documents.

And for the idea of disclosing IPR referenced in email messages..... have 
we had a single example of someone filing an IPR disclosure on anything 
specific that is *not* a document?
If this WG is *clarifying* procedures, we should not be *adding* 
procedures; if this ever becomes needed, the free-form alternative should 
be used for the first live example.

                  Harald

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:23:32 -0400 (EDT)

> be used for the first live example.

agree - which is exactly why I think the 'what types of RFCs does this
apply to' language needs to be removed 

Scott

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:32:21 -0400

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> And for the idea of disclosing IPR referenced in email 
> messages..... have we had a single example of someone 
> filing an IPR disclosure on anything specific that is 
> *not* a document?
	Well, I sent mail to SIMPLE some months ago with a "Third-Party"
warning that *if* they were to consider a particular method, they would
run into IPR problems because of a patent. My mail was about a document
that didn't exist at the time I wrote the mail but that might exist in
the future. (Note: A document does now exist...)
	Had I been the patent-holder, I might have wanted to file the
IPR disclosure as a form of "prior notice" to ensure that the WG knew
about my claims prior to doing any work in the area. Sometimes, you can
see the logical flow of the WG well enough that you can be pretty sure
that they will get around to working in some particular area long before
they actually do. (That is, of course, assuming that it is a WG that
actually makes progress...) 

		bob wyman