ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up

2012-03-21 14:29:59
Hi Barry,
I read your response and it is OK as long as the Shephard has to respond to
question 8 and inform what happened in the WG. My reading of question 7 is
that the document shepherd have to ask the authors to confirm  the IPR
status to their knowledge which is different than just reporting what was
discussed in the WG and which IP statements were submitted. Did I
mis-understand question 7.
This is why I was trying to draft the question to ask the documents authors
in order to be able to reply to question 7. I was not trying to change the
proto itself.
Thanks
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:43 PM
To: Stephan Wenger
Cc: ipr(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] IPR requirements in document write-up

[I am removing the avt and payload WG lists from this, so they can keep
at their work; feel free to direct people from those lists to the IETF
discussion list.  And thanks for moving this to the right lists.]

Hi, Stephan.
I think we're mostly in agreement, then, judging from what you say.
The gap may be a misunderstanding of what the PROTO writeup is for; it
has two purposes:

1. To provide information to the IESG, which might be important for the
IESG to consider as it reviews the document.

2. To make sure the document shepherd (usually, but not always, one of
the working group chairs) has reviewed and considered certain things.

That means that the writeup is NOT meant to set or enforce policy, and
there aren't any "right" or "wrong" answers, except that "Oh, gee, I
never thought about that," is probably never right, and the response to
it should be to go think about it.

Note in particular that BCPs 78 & 79 and Note Well have legal blessing,
the PROTO template does not, and the writeup is not there to be a legal
document.

For reference, the writeup templates live here:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/ (see the links at the bottom of the right-
hand column).  The two questions we're talking about are these:

   (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
   disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78
   and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

   (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
   If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
   disclosures.

...and there was discussion of the wording of those questions within
the IESG and with the WG chairs before finalizing it.  For the record,
not all the chairs liked the wording that's there.

What the IESG wants in response to these questions is not just "Yes"
or "No", but (where appropriate) an explanation of what IPR-related
things happened with respect to the document the writeup is for.  If
there are no IPR issues, the writeup should say that: "There are no
known IPR issues with this document, and the shepherd has re-confirmed
that with the editors and the working group," or some such.

But t also could say something like this: "Shortly after the document
was adopted by the working group, participant Herkermer Biffelwogg said
that he was aware of some IPR that might cover the document.  The
working group decided to continue working on the document, no IPR
disclosure was ever filed, and Mr Biffelwogg says he has no further
information about any IPR claims."  Or perhaps this: "The Frobozz Magic
AVT Company filed an IPR disclosure on the -06 version of the
document."  Concerned about the timing of the disclosure, the working
group fought bitterly for a few weeks about it, but ultimately came to
rough consensus to accept the Frobozz terms and continue.  The
discussion resulted in some changes to the language in the draft, and a
few participants remain unhappy with the result.  No one has said they
intend to appeal the decision."

See what I'm getting at?  Information for the IESG, and making sure
that the shepherd is on top of things.  No policy changes, subtle or
blatant.  And that's true in general with the PROTO writeup.  There are
many places where a yes/no answer could instead be done as an
explanation that really gives us an idea of what happened and how the
working group came to the result that it did.  That information can
really help when the IESG members do their reviews, and perhaps have
similar questions that were long ago answered.

Barry

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 14:09, Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org> 
wrote:
Hi Barry,

Adding the IPRWG and ietf@ietf.

For the benefit if "new" readers: This is about an updated proto
shepherd writeup template, asking two questions about IPR that, IMO
may not be in compliance with the IETF's IPR policy.

I was not aware that the proto template had IESG blessing.  Still, I
believe that the template text does not ask the right question, or,
more specifically, is a suggestive question in that it appears (at
least to me) to interpret the IETF's patent policy in a considerably
more strict way than it is set out in the policy RFCs.
I believe the IESG should reconsider the proto writeup.
A few more comments inline

On 3.21.2012 17:03 , "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> 
wrote:

Thanks for the text, I will use it.

Roni

I recommend you do not, for a few reasons:

1. You may not rewrite the PROTO template; that belongs to the IESG.

Agreed (now that I'm aware of that this is an IESG-sanctioned
template).

2. The question was worded as it is for a reason, and it should be
left that way.  The IESG wants to know whether there are any known
IPR
claims, whether declarations have been made to and considered by the
working group, and whether formal IPR statements have been filed in
the system.  The middle one is as important as the last.

Also agreed (with caveats, see below).


3. Stephan is incorrect when he says this:
The reason is that disclosure is not  required in many cases; for
example, when the IPR in question is not owned  by them or their
employers.

If you are aware of IPR that you do not own, you may and you should
make a third-party disclosure.

Barry, please read my language carefully.  Perhaps I should have
capitalized REQUIRED, but the text is clear and inline with yours.
It's MAY and SHOULD for third party disclosures.  But you are NOT
*required* to do so by policy; there is no MUST.  There are many good
and valid reasons why there is no MUST (beyond that it's not in the
policy docs).  And, third party disclosures are not even a widely
used
current practice.  Just look at the (comparatively low) number of
third party disclosures.

Look, I do patent work as my day job.  I also do standards work  In
my
current and previous job roles, I have looked at hundreds of patents
of my current or previous employers, as well as occasionally at third
party patents.  Now, with this background, let's look at the template
text again (numerals by me):

  (1) Are you aware of any IPR that applies to <insert document
name>?
(2) If so,
  has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see
RFCs 3979,
  4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?


For the majority of the documents I am working on, the answer to
question
(1) would be yes.  The answer to question (2) would be quite often
no.

Based on my interpretation of the policy RFCs, I am in full
compliance
with language and spirit of the policy.  I'm not doing anything
fishy.
I just don't talk about third party IPR, which is my right under the
IETF's IPR policy.  However, by providing answers to questions (1)
and
(2), the IESG would receive a signal that it is not entitled to
receive (more
precisely: that I'm not required to send, and not willing to send
voluntarily, as it could get me personally into trouble), namely that
there may be patents related to a document which the discloser is not
willing, AND not obligated, to talk about.

This is a policy change through the backdoor.  Policy changes through
the backdoor are bad.

My suggestion was aimed to bring the template in compliance with what
I believe is language and spirit of the policy.

Thanks,
Stephan




You may, of course, ask the question of your working group in any way
you like.  But I suggest you ask it in a way that allows you to
accurately answer the question asked in the PROTO template.

Barry, incoming Applications AD

-------- Original Message --------
From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:03 PM
To: Roni Even; 'IETF AVTCore WG'; payload(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund'
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] (no subject)

Hi,

There are many cases, where the answer to the first question is
Yes,
the  answer to the second question is No, and people would still be
in compliance  with the assorted policy RFCs.  The reason is that
disclosure is not  required in many cases; for example, when the IPR
in question is not owned  by them or their employers.



Suggest that the second question should be something like:

"

If so,

has this IPR been disclosed when so required for in compliance with
IETF IPR rules (see RFCs

3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

"



Stephan



From: Roni Even <ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:33:53 +0200
To: 'IETF AVTCore WG' <avt(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, 
<payload(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
Subject: [AVTCORE] (no subject)



Hi,



The document write-up template for sending documents to publication
has  changed.  In particular, we need to poll authors on their
compliance with  IETF IPR rules prior to moving a document to the
publication in the WG  process. See
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html
question 7.



We plan to send the following email when a WG document goes to WG
last call.







Please let us know if you have any comments on this plan.



Roni Even

AVTCore and Payload co-chair



-----------------------------------------------------------------



To: <list all authors and contributors>

Cc: AD; AVTcore/Payload WG



Subject: Regarding IPR on <insert document name>



Are you aware of any IPR that applies to <insert document name>? If
so,

has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see
RFCs

3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?



If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer
the

above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you
are

aware of any relevant IPR.  This document will not advance to the
next

stage until a response has been received from each author and
listed

contributor.



If you are on the AVTcore/payload WG email list but are not listed
as an  author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations
under
the IETF IPR  rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you
are aware of IPR of  others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain
from participating in any  contribution or discussion related to
your
undisclosed IPR.  For more  information, please see the RFCs listed
above and


http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.





_______________________________________________ Audio/Video
Transport Core  Maintenance avt(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt