Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:39:51 -0700

Russ
Yes your initial reply got stuck in Earthlink's mail - but what I was saying 
is that its not that you personally needed detail to file the notice of 
impending IPR issues with the IETF, and that was my point.  It seems that 
just knowing that there was a provisional filed should be enough.

---

BTW - its not personal of course you are a wizard and I applaud that, but 
it is an issue with that there isn't a recovery or response process/policy 
inside the IPR framework or inside the IETF as a whole, and in fact based on 
the IPR Outgoing Rights and those codified to date there is no possible fix 
for an IPR Rule violation...

So my take on this is that the real issue is that there isn't any real 
possible response with the current IETF licensing model. The real controls 
would have to be defined as to what responses were necessary PRIOR to the 
OUTGOING RIGHTS and LICENSE Document being crafted since these would be the 
constraints that it would have to support and implement the 
control-processes for.

---

What I mean by that is that currently the IETF cannot stop a document's 
circulation once published, and that means that it doesn't really matter 
what IPR policies the IETF has in place since they can never be used to 
correct an infraction of IPR policy by pulling a document which was 
published by the I-D and RFC Editor Desks which violated US or other IP Laws 
and the IETF's policies as such.

In fact since the IETF is well aware of the fact that once-published, no 
document can ever be removed from circulation, its intentional prevention of 
the implementation of a process to address this in the IP Rights frameworks 
may in fact mean that the IETF and its officers still bear the liabilities 
for "ANY and ALL" damages here, and I thought that this was something that 
the IETF management wanted to 'fix' as it were.

The math is simple...

1)    Any document published under the "For any and All Uses without any 
restrictions" caveat is mechanically out of the control of the IETF once 
done, and as long as the derivative and republishing requirements are met, 
it doesn't matter what or who is demanding that the IETF recover and prevent 
the distribution of those medias, because it will be functionally 
impossible.

2)    Since there are no controls which can pull a document from circulation 
the management of the IETF bears all responsibility for any damages that 
occur as such - since they have full knowledge that there system 
intentionally sets aside those common controls that any sane 
Copyright-Upholding entity would put in place immediately to protect itself.

This is simple procedural methodology... and the IETF needs to address this 
in both its Outgoing Rights document and in the Submission Document which 
also needs a 'hold harmless' clause in which the Submitters and their 
Sponsor's indemnify through the Submissions Process, the IETF for its 
actions as the submitter's publication agent for the IP's

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Mark Brown" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: 
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

> Todd:
>
> This is a follow-on note.  Did you miss the earlier one, where I said:
> >
> > I was aware that Mark Brown was working on a patent; however, I did not
> > begin working with him until after his provisional patent
> application was filed.
> > I did not see the claims until the filing became public.
> >
> > Since I knew that a patent was in the works, but I did not know the 
> > details,
> > at the time we submitted the -00  draft to the repository (which was
> > February 2006), I reminded Mark Brown that an IPR statement might be
> > necessary.
>
> Without seeing the claims, I could not know whether or not an IPR 
> statement was required.  Thus, the reminder to my coauthor was the 
> appropriate action on my part.
>
> Russ
>
>
> At 12:23 PM 4/9/2007, todd glassey wrote:
>>Russ - this isn't about Financial Interests its about the need to formally 
>>disclose something that you are uniquely aware of that the rest of the 
>>IETF isn't. That makes you liable IMHO for any damages someone suffers 
>>because of this failure to disclose. And since you are a IETF Manager its 
>>worse.
>>
>>Todd Glassey
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
>>To: "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
>>Cc: "Mark Brown" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
>><[email-masked]>
>>Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:35 AM
>>Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: 
>>draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
>>
>>
>>>Dean:
>>>
>>>I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a document for which I am 
>>>an author.  You will find this to be the normal practice for all IESG 
>>>members.
>>>
>>>I have no financial interest in PedPhone Security or the patent filing. 
>>>I provided consulting services to RedPhone Security; it was a simple work 
>>>for hire.
>>>
>>>I have no investors in my very small consulting company: Vigil Security, 
>>>LLC.  I am the owner, and I am the only full-time employee.
>>>
>>>Russ
>>>
>>>
>>>ItAt 07:47 PM 4/7/2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dean:
>>>> >
>>>> > >I'm still not clear on a few things:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >-- When did Russ Housley learn of the Patent Filing?
>>>> >
>>>> > I was aware that Mark Brown was working on a patent; however, I did
>>>> > not begin working with him until after his provisional patent
>>>> > application was filed.  I did not see the claims until the filing
>>>> > became public.
>>>> >
>>>> > Since I knew that a patent was in the works, but I did not know the
>>>> > details, at the time we submitted the -00  draft to the repository
>>>> > (which was February 2006), I reminded Mark Brown that an IPR
>>>> > statement might be necessary.
>>>>
>>>>How long did it take to produce the draft? Presumably, you must have
>>>>started working on the project earlier than the date of submission.
>>>>Did you know of the patent application before submission?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I note that you recused yourself from the decisions made on this draft.
>>>>That is commendable. It also implies that you stand to benefit somehow
>>>>from the draft. But the patent (assuming it is granted) gives Brown and
>>>>Wilke a monopoly on the technology.  How is it, in general terms, that
>>>>you will benefit from this draft?  Do you have, perhaps, a favorable
>>>>license agreement with Brown?  Perhaps stock in Brown's company?  Did
>>>>Brown agree to invest in your company?  Is there another patent
>>>>application? As it stands, the information we have, indicates that only
>>>>Brown stands to benefit, and this doesn't explain your involvement in
>>>>these drafts. Some clarity on how you stand to benefit would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
>>>>www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
>>>>617 344 9000
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ietf mailing list
>>>[email-masked]
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> 

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:44:47 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>; "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Mark Brown" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last 
Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

> Russ
> Yes your initial reply got stuck in Earthlink's mail - but what I was 
> saying is that its not that you personally needed detail to file the 
> notice of impending IPR issues with the IETF, and that was my point.  It 
> seems that just knowing that there was a provisional filed should be 
> enough.
>
> ---
>
> inside the IPR framework or inside the IETF as a whole, and in fact based 
> on the IPR Outgoing Rights and those codified to date there is no possible 
> fix for an IPR Rule violation...
>
> OUTGOING RIGHTS and LICENSE Document being crafted since these would be 
> the constraints that it would have to support and implement the 
> control-processes for.
>
> ---
>
> published by the I-D and RFC Editor Desks which violated US or other IP 
> Laws and the IETF's policies as such.
>
> document can ever be removed from circulation, its intentional prevention 
> of the implementation of a process to address this in the IP Rights 
> frameworks may in fact mean that the IETF and its officers still bear the 
> liabilities for "ANY and ALL" damages here, and I thought that this was 
> something that the IETF management wanted to 'fix' as it were.
>
> The math is simple...
>
> it doesn't matter what or who is demanding that the IETF recover and 
> prevent the distribution of those medias, because it will be functionally 
> impossible.
>
> 2)    Since there are no controls which can pull a document from 
> circulation the management of the IETF bears all responsibility for any 
> damages that occur as such - since they have full knowledge that there 
> system

err Their System

> This is simple procedural methodology... and the IETF needs to address 
> this in both its Outgoing Rights document and in the Submission Document 
> which also needs a 'hold harmless' clause in which the Submitters and 
> their Sponsor's indemnify through the Submissions Process, the IETF for 
> its actions as the submitter's publication agent for the IP's
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>
>>>Russ - this isn't about Financial Interests its about the need to 
>>>formally disclose something that you are uniquely aware of that the rest 
>>>of the IETF isn't. That makes you liable IMHO for any damages someone 
>>>suffers because of this failure to disclose. And since you are a IETF 
>>>Manager its worse.
>>>
>>>Todd Glassey
>>>
>>>>I provided consulting services to RedPhone Security; it was a simple 
>>>>work for hire.
>>>>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:40:30 -0400

Todd:

>Yes your initial reply got stuck in Earthlink's mail - but what I 
>was saying is that its not that you personally needed detail to file 
>the notice of impending IPR issues with the IETF, and that was my 
>point.  It seems that just knowing that there was a provisional 
>filed should be enough.

One needs to know more detail than that.  It was not clear to me that 
the claims would have been relevant to the document at hand.  If I 
had that knowledge, then a 3rd party disclosure would have been appropriate.

Russ