Subject: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:24:37 -0400

For your information:

In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made 
an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered 
alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. 
I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it 
relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.

Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it 
becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict 
IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.

Conversely, it reinforces the economic incentive for medium and large 
organizations to isolate the individuals participating in the IETF 
activities from the patent application management process.

Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the 
problem area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit 
security model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong 
preference for "ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR") 
when a tradeoff has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope 
and field of application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as 
innovation enhances the networking technology.

Please note that I am not well aware of the detailed procedural and 
institutional arrangements that implement RFC3979, before the appeal 
process can correct deviations. While I was participating in the above 
matter, I chose not to rely on the appeal process, perhaps because it 
wasn't clear to me how things should have gone in the first place.

P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF ipr wg charter; 
perhaps the above is totally off-topic.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [email-masked]

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:28:43 -0400

If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Working Group should
take technical issues into account just as much as it takes IPR
encumbrance into account.  Is that right?

swb

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:37:00 -0700

The IPR-WG charter is half the problem here IMHO. The IPR WG needs to be the 
ONLY PLACE within the IETF that IPR and Participation Control issues are 
addressed. They do not belong in the [email-masked] WG since they are 
pertinent to IPR issues directly.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thierry Moreau" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg 
and IESG

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:07:43 +0200

> IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.

Our rules have allowed WGs to choose to favor unencumbered solutions
for many years. You'd have to be much more specific about what
you mean by 'a priori' to explain why you think this is a precedent.

       Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:32:03 +0200

> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
Actually getting the WG to do something to change what RFC 3979 says 
would require a change to the WG's charter.

I believe arguing for such a charter change is within scope for the 
mailing list, but only if new information has come to light since the 
last time the issue was raised; it would take a *very* strong argument 
to convince me, at least, to take on such a task before the WG is 
finished with its current tasks.

Harald

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:52:02 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made an 
>> a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered 
>> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. I 
>> spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it 
>> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict IETF 
>> activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
>

a bit of catch up for those who aren't following DNSSEC

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05465.html
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
  http://www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05527.html

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:14:27 +0200

I must admit I'm lost here.

All the dates I can find are:

- November 20, 2006: draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements-04 published
- February 26, 2007: draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming published
- March 19, 2007: DNS resolver priming discussed in Prague @DNSOP
- April 19, 2007: Patent request filed in Canada
- April 20, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-00 is published
- May 9, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 is published
- May 10, 2007: Thierry Moreau informally discloses existence of IPR
- June 5, 2007: Thierry Moreau formally discloses existence of patent 
applciation

Unless time travel is involved, I cannot see any way the current existence 
of the patent application filed in April 2007 can have influenced the draft 
published in November 2006.

What have I failed to understand?

                 Harald

--On 8. juni 2007 14:52 -0700 Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> I  spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how
>>> it  relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
>>>
>>> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC,
>>> it  becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously
>>> restrict IETF  activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
>>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:36:30 -0700

Harald... (and Lucy and Brian... )
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Lucy Lynch" <[email-masked]>; "Brian E Carpenter" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thierry Moreau" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg 
and IESG

>I must admit I'm lost here.

Yeah - I am betting on that one too! Have you actually EVER read the US 
Patent filing guidelines or timeframe requirements?

> of the patent application filed in April 2007 can have influenced the 
> draft published in November 2006.

Simple - the filing date of the IETF Draft doesnt mean anything to a tree 
unless its more than one year prior to the Patent App filing. And then there 
may be issues if there was a revival effort on that time-expired IP's... So 
the filing date of the patent app can be as much as 1 (one) calendar year 
from the date of the first public disclosure...  so its neither impossible 
of out of the question.

> What have I failed to understand?

Err... how about basic IP Law?

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:22:49 -0700

T - the filing deadlines for US Filings are 1 year post disclosure - so 
anyone filing a draft up to 365 days prior to a patent filing could be 
constrained by that filing. Plus there is the liability issue to deal with 
too. That being that if any of the parties involved in the IETF filing are 
inside or are informed as to the original IP their filing could be a 
violation of that IP Filing's rights and they also may be liable (as would 
their sponsor's for any damages they do inside the IETF).

TGlassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thierry Moreau" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:24 AM
Subject: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and 
IESG

> Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the problem 
> area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit security 
> model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong preference for 
> "ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR") when a tradeoff 
> has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope and field of 
> application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as innovation enhances 
> the networking technology.
>
> Please note that I amFrom [email-masked] Mon Jun 11 16:27:27 2007
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Don Armstrong" <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:23:25 -0700
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Admin note: The IPR design team

The problem is again - that all messages MUST be part of the vetting history 
or the standard is incomplete.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Armstrong" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Admin note: The IPR design team

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> The design team's role is not to make decisions (that is the
>> prerogative of the WG), but to provide a method for quick exchanges
>> of messages between its members.
>
> Would it be possible to make these messages publicly available so the
> drafting process remains as open as possible? [Obviously, there's no
> way to stop private exchanges of messages between members, but the
> more open these things are, the better.]
>
>
> Don Armstrong
>
> -- 
> In all matters of government, the correct answer is usually: "Do
> nothing"
> -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p428
>
> http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu
>

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:44:51 -0400

Dear all:

If it may assist ipr wg participants in focusing on the wg issues, if 
any in the present discussion thread, here is a clarification:

The observations I made about draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements 
*are completely independent from* draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming, or 
the IPR disclosure for the latter.

Like Harald, I'm lost when reading comments suggesting otherwise.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Unless time travel is involved, I cannot see any way the current 
> existence of the patent application filed in April 2007 can have 
> influenced the draft published in November 2006.
>