Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:37:00 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property
                          Issues
	Author(s)	: S. Brim
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt
	Pages		: 17
	Date		: 2003-2-19
	
This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb useful
for working groups dealing with IPR issues.  It documents specific
examples of how IPR issues have been dealt with in the IETF.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:00:31 -0800

The public distribution of this draft is a slap at those of us who have
joined the IETF IPR WG to direct IETF's energies toward an RF patent
policy.  This document is currently the topic of extensive controversy
on the IPR WG discussion list and it by no means represents "concensus"
under any reasonable definition of that word for a "conceptual framework
and rules of thumb."  I never even heard a vote being taken.

Under IETF's rules, this document may be allowed to be distributed.  But
please don't draw the conclusion that it will be supported by the
leaders of the open source community.  This dispute over RF and RAND
patent policies, and about the appropriate structure of IETF to prevent
patent-encumbered Internet standards, will continue unabated despite the
attempt to short-circuit it by premature publication of a proposal by a
few.

/Lawrence Rosen
ROSENLAW.COM, a technology law firm
General counsel, Open Source Initiative
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: [email-masked]
www.rosenlaw.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:37 AM
> To: IETF-Announce:; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
> Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the 
> Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb 
> useful for working groups dealing with IPR issues.  It 
> documents specific examples of how IPR issues have been dealt 
> with in the IETF.
> 

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt".

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers

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

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:24:13 -0500

Larry, you wrote:
> The public distribution of this draft is a slap at 
> those of us who have joined the IETF IPR WG
	I think you misunderstand the IETF process... The distribution
of an Internet Draft doesn't imply any sort of "support" for its
content. It requires no votes and represents only the opinions of its
authors. Anyone can produce an internet draft whenever they are in the
mood. The things are distributed so that people can comment on them.
Note: It has often been suggested that Internet Drafts are the real
"Requests for comments" while the RFCs are the result of having debated
internet drafts.
	There is no reason to ever be upset by the distribution of an
Internet Draft.

		bob wyman

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Lawrence E. Rosen
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:01 PM
To: [email-masked]; IETF-Announce:@mail.pacific.net
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt

/Lawrence Rosen

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:31:20 -0500

> and rules of thumb."  I never even heard a vote being taken.

The current charter aims the group at clarifying current policy and
beefing up its expression.  This draft only attempts to do that.  Your
particular attempt to "direct" the IETF toward an RF patent policy has
nothing to do with the working group as it is currently chartered.  In
my mind, the discussion threads you are involved in are only tolerated
because there is a chance that we will complete the current charter's
work at the upcoming meeting, and thus might have a chance to start
discussion of new work.  Nothing you say about RF patent policies will
change the policy as it stands now, and therefore has nothing to do with
this draft.

> attempt to short-circuit it by premature publication of a proposal by a

You may participate in discussions about re-chartering when they become
appropriate.

People have already told you several times what the current charter of
the group is, and what the expected process is.  We've been rather nice
about it.  The fact that you ignore what other people tell you, and come
out with this self-righteous yet confused attempt at rhetoric, mainly
just erodes your credibility.  

swb

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:53:33 -0800

Thank you for clarifying IETF processes.

In that case, my email to the group will make it abundantly clear that
the draft is NOT a concensus opinion of anyone but its authors.

/Larry

> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:24 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 	I think you misunderstand the IETF process... The 
> distribution of an Internet Draft doesn't imply any sort of 
> "support" for its content. It requires no votes and 
> represents only the opinions of its authors. Anyone can 
> produce an internet draft whenever they are in the mood. The 
> things are distributed so that people can comment on them.
> Note: It has often been suggested that Internet Drafts are 
> the real "Requests for comments" while the RFCs are the 
> result of having debated internet drafts.
> 	There is no reason to ever be upset by the distribution 
> of an Internet Draft.
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 
> Behalf Of Lawrence E. Rosen
> The public distribution of this draft is a slap at those of 
> us who have joined the IETF IPR WG to direct IETF's energies 
> toward an RF patent policy.  This document is currently the 
> topic of extensive controversy on the IPR WG discussion list 
> and it by no means represents "concensus" under any 
> reasonable definition of that word for a "conceptual 
> framework and rules of thumb."  I never even heard a vote being taken.
> 
> Under IETF's rules, this document may be allowed to be 
> distributed.  But please don't draw the conclusion that it 
> will be supported by the leaders of the open source 
> community.  This dispute over RF and RAND patent policies, 
> and about the appropriate structure of IETF to prevent 
> patent-encumbered Internet standards, will continue unabated 
> despite the attempt to short-circuit it by premature 
> publication of a proposal by a few.
> 
> /Lawrence Rosen
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of [email-masked]
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> > directories. This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property 
> > Rights Working Group of the IETF.
> > 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login 
> with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail 
> address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:09:26 -0800

Dear Scott,

The attempt by some to paper over this draft as merely an attempt to
clarify existing policy won't work with me.  

Certainly this analogy is over dramatic, but here goes: The founding
fathers of the United States didn't solve the slavery dispute by
publishing a constitution that merely acknowledged there were slaves and
leaving the problem to another day.  

The day is here for patent encumbered standards for the Internet.  Start
to deal with it!  Clarifications of current policy are irrelevant.

/Larry Rosen

> Behalf Of Scott W Brim
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:31 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt
> 
> 
> > The public distribution of this draft is a slap at those of us who 
> > have joined the IETF IPR WG to direct IETF's energies toward an RF 
> > patent policy.  This document is currently the topic of extensive 
> > controversy on the IPR WG discussion list and it by no means 
> > represents "concensus" under any reasonable definition of that word 
> > for a "conceptual framework and rules of thumb."  I never 
> even heard a 
> > vote being taken.
> 
> The current charter aims the group at clarifying current 
> policy and beefing up its expression.  This draft only 
> attempts to do that.  Your particular attempt to "direct" the 
> IETF toward an RF patent policy has nothing to do with the 
> working group as it is currently chartered.  In my mind, the 
> discussion threads you are involved in are only tolerated 
> because there is a chance that we will complete the current 
> charter's work at the upcoming meeting, and thus might have a 
> chance to start discussion of new work.  Nothing you say 
> about RF patent policies will change the policy as it stands 
> now, and therefore has nothing to do with this draft.
> 
> distributed.  
> > But please don't draw the conclusion that it will be 
> supported by the 
> > patent policies, and about the appropriate structure of IETF to 
> > prevent patent-encumbered Internet standards, will continue 
> unabated 
> You may participate in discussions about re-chartering when 
> they become appropriate.
> 
> People have already told you several times what the current 
> charter of the group is, and what the expected process is.  
> We've been rather nice about it.  The fact that you ignore 
> what other people tell you, and come out with this 
> self-righteous yet confused attempt at rhetoric, mainly just 
> erodes your credibility.  
> 
> swb

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:24:08 -0500

Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
 > the draft is NOT a consensus opinion of anyone but its authors.

The chair of the WG decide what forms consensus.  If the chair decides
that somebody is a jerk (*cough* Dan Bernstein *cough*), then the
quantity or quality of their objections is of no matter.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | A government does enough
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | wrong to offset what it
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right.  Better that
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | it should do less.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:39:45 -0500

> clarify existing policy won't work with me.  

I don't know what "paper over" means in this context, but the question
is moot.  This draft isn't directed at you.  It's for IETF working group
participants who are trying to decide how to take IPR issues into
account when deciding whether to adopt technologies.

> leaving the problem to another day.  

It is my intention, and I believe the intention of many, to discuss what
issues this group should take up next, in re-chartering.  One of those
issues will undoubtedly be whether to limit acceptable licensing terms.
However, that could easily not be in the set of issues covered by the
re-charter.  The consensus of the group might be that there are higher
priority problems.  Be warned that making impassioned speeches about
slavery without targeting them at specific problems the IETF is having
in getting its business done may lead people to give you less credence.
I suggest you do a lot of reading on past discussion, starting with the
discussions of rfc1602 which led to rfc2026, before the meeting.  I
also suggest you talk to at least 3 working group chairs about the IPR
problems they've faced, and how the consensus process dealt with them.

> to deal with it!  

Do you mean unencumbered?

Also, does this mean you're against patents in their entirety?  I
thought you found patents acceptable as long as the license terms were
acceptable.

Are you being careful (and constructive) in what you say?

> Clarifications of current policy are irrelevant.

Not at all, consiering how long it may take us to get to a new policy. 

swb

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:56:36 -0500

I strongly support the draft.  Some nits though:

section 2:

   o  IPR is noted, by the author of a document or by a different IETF
      participant, that is claimed by an organization that does not
      participate in the IETF at all.

   o  An organization that does not participate in the IETF, but that
      monitors its activities, discovers that a document intersects that
      organization's established or pending intellectual property
      claims. It may come forward right away, or wait and let the IETF
      work progress.

since IETF does not have organizational participants, both of the two
above bullets should be reworded.  suggest

   o  IPR is noted, by an author of a document or by a different IETF
      participant, that is claimed by an individual or ororganization
      with which neither an author of document or the participant
      noting the IPR have an affiliation.

   o  An individual or organization that monitors IETF activities,
      discovers that a document intersects that individual
      or organization's established or pending intellectual property    
      claims. It may come forward right away, or wait and let the IETF  
      work progress. 

also in section 2:

   The IETF does not have detailed rules for each situation. Working
   groups have essentially only one rule they can invoke -- about
   individuals not participating in activities related to a technology
   if they do not disclose known IPR. Other than that a working group
   only has recommendations and requests.

the last sentence did not scan well when I read it.  suggest

   Beyond that a working group can only make recommendations and 
   requests.

regarding some of these examples, I think it's worth pointing out that
it's too early to judge the effects of some of these decisions.

I'm not sure I understand section 4.4.  which protocol did vrrp
submit for standardization - the one which the IPR claimant supported,
or the one which was not supported?

in section 4.6,

   In one case, even though a patent was
   announced as purely defensive, the working group participants
   investigated the claims themselves. They concluded that it did not
   overlap.

this sounds as if the entire working group investigated the claims and
came to consensus as a group.  if this isn't the case then the statement
should be reworded.  e.g. "many WG participants investigated..."

section 5.5

   In general, a working group should strive to find out about all IPR
   claims related to technologies it is considering, and at least the
   general facts about licensing terms for each case -- for example
   whether the terms will be "reasonable and non-discriminatory".

suggest adding ..., or "royalty-free" - just as a hint that RF terms
might be available if they are sought.

   Most of the time licensing
   terms are reasonable and do not limit the usefulness of the
   technology.  

suggest "Often" instead of "Most of the time" - particularly because
the landscape may be changing in this regard.

section 5.6

   Recall that words such as "reasonable", "fair", and
   "non-discriminatory" have no objective legal or financial definition.

suggest

   Note that words such as...

since the reader might not have known this before reading this document.

the sentence:

   The employers of IETF participants all know
   that that IETF prefers explicit terms, and do feel pressure to
   produce them.

is certainly not true.  suggest "Many employers of IETF participants
know..."

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:07:16 -0500

Keith: OK to all, and thanks.  I'll work them up.  This is probably
already enough for another version before the meeting, and enough for me
to hope we can go to last call after it.

..Scott

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:13:02 -0500

In message <014f01c2d901$9772c0f0$927ba8c0@ROSENGARDEN>, "Lawrence E. Rosen" wr
>attempt to short-circuit it by premature publication of a proposal by a

This is going to be a lot longer than I like, but I think some 
clarification is in order.

First -- and as others have noted -- there are exceedingly few 
requirements for publishing an Internet draft.  You have exactly as 
much right to publish your own I-Ds as Scott does; in fact (see below) 
I would encourage you to do so.  Any attempt by me to block publication 
of an I-D would be an affront to openness, and would violate both IETF 
policies and my own personal principles.

Second -- IETF working groups operate according to a charter.  See RFC 
2418 details on that.  The charter for this group is at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html .  The first mission
of this group is to clarify the current policy.  There are many reasons 
for that choice; not the least among them is that there is considerable 
confusion about the current policy.  In my first four months as an AD, 
I was asked no fewer than five different times to explain it.  If we do 
adopt another policy -- and it's by no means clear that we will; the 
consensus of the IETF has been rather strongly in favor of the current 
policy -- it will take a considerable amount of time to do so.  In the 
interim, we'll be operating under our current policy, and it requires 
clarification.  Even assuming that we decided *today* to adopt a 
RF-only policy (and that's quite a stretch), and even if all WGs 
decided to act that way even before the new policies were formally 
in place, we'd *still* need to spend time clarifying the disclosure 
requirements.  That topic alone has occupied a considerable amount of 
WG energy since at least Yokohama.

Third -- Scott Brim's document is explicitly specified by the charter.  
In other words, we're "contractually" obligated to produce it, per 
section 2.2 of 2418.  That is the only sense in which that draft has 
any "official" status, as denoted by its name:  draft-ietf-ipr-... 
rather than draft-brim-...   (Different WG chairs have different 
policies on when drafts carry the WG name.  Rob and I haven't discussed 
the issue for this WG, but it seems pretty obvious that the three 
mandated documents should be named that way.  A not-uncommon rule is 
that drafts are named that way when they represent the mainstream 
consensus of the WG per its charter.  It's emphatically not a 
reflection on the author, and it's not a status that is bestowed by the 
chair upon certain individuals.  To give just one example, in another 
WG I'm working on a revised version of an I-D of mine at the explicit 
request of the chair -- and it will be named draft-bellovin-... because 
the WG hasn't accepted its basic principles yet.)

Fourth -- Scott Brim's document, as well as Scott Bradner's two 
drafts, are the product of a design team.  For rules governing DTs, see
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Design-Teams.txt.  I note 
explicitly this text:

  The key point here is that the output of a design team is input to a
  working group, not a final document.  Such a document must not be
  considered as more important than any other input to the working group.
  
  Anyone can write an alternative proposal and ask the working group to
  consider it. The decision on which document to work further on must be made
  by the consensus of the working group. If design teams work as intended,
  their output will be of a quality that speaks for itself.

Anyone else is welcome to submit their own alternative drafts -- *for 
the roles called out in the charter*.  (The existence of the design 
team was announced to the mailing list on June 14 of last year.)

Fifth -- after we finish those three documents, we decide whether or 
not we want to recharter.  More specifically -- and quoting the charter 
-- Rob and I get to decide if there is a consensus for change.  If 
there's a consensus for change -- 50%+1 is not a consensus -- we'll 
draft a new charter and proceed.  It's only because that decision is 
part of our charter that this discussion is within scope.  

That said, the discussion has become repetitive and is descending into 
rhetoric and name-calling, rather than reasoned discussion.  I 
therefore strongly urge people on all sides of that issue to write 
their own I-Ds, to discuss next month in San Francisco.  Again citing
2418 (Section 7), I-Ds are the normal way by which ideas are brought 
forward in a working group.  (Rob and I are putting together the agenda 
for San Francisco; I expect that the majority of time will be spent on 
the recharter question.)

Again -- *please* submit I-Ds (and note the deadlines in
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_56.html ).  I-Ds don't
have to be fancy, polished, or complete; they do need to be
coherent on the main subject matter.  It's quite normal and proper
to submit I-Ds that you don't expect, intend, or desire to become RFCs.

		--Steve Bellovin and Rob Austein

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:34:17 +0100

I believe this draft is an accurate reflection of my understanding
of how WGs should deal with the IETF's current IPR policy, so
I think it should be published as soon as possible.

   Brian