Subject: [sieve] IPR Disclosures on draft-ietf-sieve-include and draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:26:01 -0600

Folks,

As you have seen by now, the IETF has received 2 IPR disclosures, one 
regarding draft-ietf-sieve-convert and the other involving 
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1657/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/

Unfortunately, we have been told that Qian Sun, one of the co-authors of 
the document, is the author of the patent in question, filed back in 
2008, and that he failed to disclose this at the time. I think this was 
pretty clearly a violation of RFC 3979, and the IESG will take up the 
question of what, if any, appropriate measures need to be taken because 
of that. Qian Sun is apparently no longer an active IETF participant, 
and his co-workers who are active IETF participants asked their company 
to disclose against the two documents as soon as they discovered what 
had happened. That's where were are now.

However, I did want to bring this to the attention of the working group 
and ask about the following:

Both of these drafts are already approved and in the RFC Editor queue. 
Right now, the RFC Editor has been asked to hold off publication for the 
moment until we decide the next steps. We could treat the IPR 
disclosures just as we would for any already published RFC (that is, we 
can simply say that it is out of our hands). However, since publication 
has not occurred, we can ask the RFC Editor to return the documents to 
the WG for further review, which as far as I can tell the RFC Editor 
always agrees to do. So, I ask that you all review the disclosures and 
ask the following question to the group:

After having reviewed the disclosures, does anyone in the WG wish to 
discuss the impact of these disclosures on the decision to publish these 
documents as they are? If so, I will likely ask the chairs to run a WGLC 
on the documents, and then I will run a new IETF Last Call with a 
pointer to the IPR disclosures. On the other hand, if there is *strong* 
consensus now on the list that it is fine go forward as-is, I will 
consider the matter settled and tell the RFC Editor to continue processing.

Please let us know what you think.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:38:35 -0500

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/
...
> Both of these drafts are already approved and in the RFC Editor queue. Right
> now, the RFC Editor has been asked to hold off publication for the moment
> until we decide the next steps. We could treat the IPR disclosures just as
> we would for any already published RFC (that is, we can simply say that it
> is out of our hands). However, since publication has not occurred, we can
> ask the RFC Editor to return the documents to the WG for further review,

I am, of course, not a lawyer, but as I read the terms, they don't
affect prospective implementations, and you need no license at all as
long as you don't want to assert your own patents back.  That's not to
say that this isn't annoying; it is, and I wish it hadn't happened.
It's just that I don't see it affecting any implementations of the
standard, which is what's most important here.

I'll also add that Huawei now has not just policies, but also active
procedures in place to do our best to make this not happen in future.
Our IETF participants are frequently reminded about the IETF IPR
policies, and there are people responsible for tracking things and
ensuring compliance.

In this case, I think that publishing these documents is the right
thing to do.  I think a working-group review is sufficient, and unless
WG participants particularly think we need to reach out to the
community at large for confirmation, we should just release the RFC Ed
hold on them after this consultation with the WG.

I'll add that the working group and the ADs need to have participants
speak up and say whether you think that's acceptable or not.  Silence
is not sufficient in this case.  Please tell us how you would like
this handled.

Barry

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:43:49 +0000

> is not sufficient in this case.  Please tell us how you would like
I think we need at least WGLC. I think our responsible AD needs to 
decide whether to do IETF LC or not (I have no strong preference either 
way).

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:04:25 +0000

> draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message.
I just want to point out that you made a typo in the subject line, but 
the above text is correct. An IPR declaration was filed on 
draft-ietf-sieve-convert and not draft-ietf-sieve-include.
> Unfortunately, we have been told that Qian Sun, one of the co-authors 
> of the document, is the author of the patent in question, filed back 
> in 2008, and that he failed to disclose this at the time. I think this 
> was pretty clearly a violation of RFC 3979, and the IESG will take up 
> the question of what, if any, appropriate measures need to be taken 
> because of that. Qian Sun is apparently no longer an active IETF 
> participant, and his co-workers who are active IETF participants asked 
> their company to disclose against the two documents as soon as they 
> discovered what had happened. That's where were are now.
>
> However, I did want to bring this to the attention of the working 
> group and ask about the following:
>
> Right now, the RFC Editor has been asked to hold off publication for 
> the moment until we decide the next steps. We could treat the IPR 
> disclosures just as we would for any already published RFC (that is, 
> we can simply say that it is out of our hands). However, since 
> publication has not occurred, we can ask the RFC Editor to return the 
> documents to the WG for further review, which as far as I can tell the 
> RFC Editor always agrees to do. So, I ask that you all review the 
> disclosures and ask the following question to the group:
>
> discuss the impact of these disclosures on the decision to publish 
> these documents as they are? If so, I will likely ask the chairs to 
> run a WGLC on the documents, and then I will run a new IETF Last Call 
> with a pointer to the IPR disclosures. On the other hand, if there is 
> *strong* consensus now on the list that it is fine go forward as-is, I 
> will consider the matter settled and tell the RFC Editor to continue 
> processing.
>

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:01:58 +0100

What an unpleasant situation.

IMO, the documents can go forward as is, since there is a clear
assertion that the patents are defensive.

As I see it, there is no real difference between the mail Pete has
already sent and mail with subject "WGLC". "This needs WGLC" ≅ "strong
letter to follow".

Btw, I'd like to hear what procedures Huawei have instituted.

Arnt

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:07:53 +0100

But please allow another month or so to pass before publishing the RFCs.
Just in case someone's not reading mail and has something significant to
say.

Arnt

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:23:00 -0500

Hi Arnt,

> Just in case someone's not reading mail and has something significant to

This is a legal matter that may require proper legal review be undertaken 
by implementers' organizations. Given the timing of this, with the upcoming 
holidays, and the fact that, in my experience, legal issues often take 
longer than one expects to be resolved, I do think we need to delay the 
documents sufficiently to account for that. My preference is for a last 
call that finishes at the end of January 2012. I don't mind whether that is 
a WG or IETF last call, though I am tempted to suggest this should go to 
the IETF as a whole.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Aaron Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:12:01 -0800

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Arnt,
>
>
> --On December 18, 2011 11:07:53 PM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>

January sounds right to me, and I'm thinking an IETF LC is better. We'll
announce it of course on the WG list, but because the primary reason for
the call is a legal / organizational impact rather than a technical one, we
might not be as well equipped within the WG to comment with respect to the
layer 8 and 9 issues.

Cheers,
Aaron