ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

2007-10-19 13:06:12
Paul Hoffman wrote:
"Early on" is much different than "when the WG is formed". It is
reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology*
when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG.

And so, if our reasonable policy is that the "IPR desired" on IETF's
standardized Internet technologies shall ab initio be free (in several
senses of the word "free" to be defined later), then we must deal with
patents "early on." Like now....

You probably mean a narrower definition of "technology" than I intend, which
includes *all* of IETF's Internet specifications. I'm after a resolution of
IETF policy regarding patent-encumbered IETF specifications wherever they
appear, not some rule that requires each WG to look for and compare patents
to technology. I never suggested that each WG start or end its
standardization process by looking for patents. What a waste that would be!
Even the companies that own those patents refuse to take the time to do that
before their employees join a WG. 

I agree with you that IETF should only address specific patents in the
context of a specific technology (or set of technologies) when the patent
landscape becomes clearer during WG activities. That may happen early on or
later, as ideas ferment and as patents become known.

Several of you are twisting my recommendations about policy into a threat to
the independent creativity of each WG. I DON'T want each WG to worry about
patents unless non-free patents actually are discovered. I DO want IETF to
adopt policies concerning the disclosure of patents when known by WG
participants, and the mandatory licensing of those patents for free by those
patent owners who actually participate in and contribute to a specification,
or alternatively the withdrawal of that specification as an IETF standard. 

Otherwise, to speak freely here, patent-encumbered specifications that we
waste our time creating are useless for open source and many proprietary
implementations.

But I go beyond where we are already. The policy we need should not be
debated here yet. This is too big a list for that discussion. 

What I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and
procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result
in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents.

That's a simple charter for the IPR-WG. Not so simple perhaps to guarantee
consensus even on definitions, and perhaps it won't result in a single
formal proposal, but it needs to be addressed. The IPR-WG is an appropriate
place for that activity.

/Larry Rosen


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:43 AM
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
authz-extns]

At 10:46 AM +0200 10/19/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> writes:

 At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make
sure
those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our
time and
resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't
implement?

 I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but
 that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could
 you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable?

The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been
presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it.
Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC
4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2.  No Known
Intellectual Property Encumbrance'.

This is a good example of how Lawrence's proposal would not have
worked. The technology you are talking about came up years after the
WG was formed.

The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is
fairly strong.  If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the
discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily
dismissed.  Time could be spent on more productive work.

"Early on" is much different than "when the WG is formed". It is
reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology*
when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>