Subject: Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:15:19 -0700

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> IANAL, but it's my understanding that the prominently displayed Note Well
> text already serves this purpose. The real sanction can only be having
> a patent struck down by the courts due to intentional failure to
> disclose it; all the IETF can do is to make its rules clear enough
> for the courts to be able to make such a finding.
...
> I don't see what we need to change. As the current case shows,
> we know how to rescind a standards action if appropriate. 

IALOAL (I am less of a lawyer) but what you say makes complete sense to me 
(which probably should worry folks.)

IETF actions:  Note Well note, and later possibility of rescinding standards 
status.

Legal action (by others): Use of Note Well, etc. as input to suit against patent.

The only issue that occurs to me is the difference between Historic vs. 
Experimental/Informational.  The only reason it might be worthy of discussion 
is the possible legal impact.  I could imagine that Historic would be a more 
clear bit of input to the legal process...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

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

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:54:44 -0500

Hi, Dave,

Just to make sure I'm breathing the same atmosphere you are ...

Are you suggesting initial publication of RFCs as Historic?

I have some opinions about that, but wanted to make sure what you are 
suggesting before I start typing...

Spencer

> Experimental/Informational.  The only reason it might be worthy of 
> discussion is the possible legal impact.  I could imagine that Historic 
> would be a more clear bit of input to the legal process...
>
> d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:33:07 -0700

> Are you suggesting initial publication of RFCs as Historic?

No (though I think DomainKeys was just initially published that way, albeit 
for a very different and benign reason; kinda amusing to see.).

Brian suggested the Historic label as an essentially punitive action, *after* 
publication on standards track, to reclassify it off the track. If it is 
discovered that there was inadequate disclosure.

It's not exactly insightful to predict that the IETF's taking this unusual 
action is likely to be the result of a process that includes a lot of anger 
amongst the IETF community. However I think the action need not be viewed as 
"punitive".  Rather it merely marks an error and fixes the publication "books" 
to reflect the error.  (But, then, I don't see getting on standards track as a 
"reward", either...)

Let's be clear:

    1.   Lots of specifications do just fine in the real world without any 
IETF label at all and certainly without an IETF standards track label.  So 
there is no inherent basis for claiming that the label is needed for a spec to 
be useful.

    2. Rather, the label says something about community consensus.  If a later 
disclosure alters that consensus, then of course the community should re-label 
the thing, to take it off standards track.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:51:35 -0700

Post-posting additional thoughts:

Dave Crocker wrote:
>    2. Rather, the label says something about community consensus.  If a 
> later disclosure alters that consensus, then of course the community 
> should re-label the thing, to take it off standards track.

Although this should be check with an appropriate attorney, I would expect 
that relabeling to Historic might have a variety of uses for an legal actions.

Reversing a patent is only one.

I could imagine something as interesting as class action, among the companies 
who were deceived by the non-disclosing party.  After all, they will have gone 
down the path of strategic planning and implementation, on a basis that the 
disclosing party knew to be both incorrect and to its benefit, along with 
being against the IETF rules.

I could even imagine that those companies could even demand fees for having 
been used as unwitting consultants to the disclosing party's design efforts...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker