Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
There are a number of different problems, and only some of them have
been articulated. Worse, the problems include the IPR rules themselves,
not just the Note Well:
0. We have had IPR rules and a Note Well for many years and have
revised both a number of times.
I'd bet 90% of folks who read the Note Well aren't even aware that
BCP 79 is a concatenation of RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.
:^(
It is a sad fact that having read BCP 79 eight years ago isn't "enough".
Normally, work we do that has been around that long warrants being
called "mature", which means that it works well and is well understood.
Delusions _are_ functional! ;^)
The latest discussion demonstrates that that model does not apply to
the IETF's IPR handling...
1. The participants in the discussion are extremely experienced
with the IETF and with this topic. Yet they demonstrated a strong
/lack/ of rough consensus about what the /current/ IPR rules mean.
+1
2. The current rules are too complex for use by average engineers.
Engineers are not attorneys, nevermind IPR attorneys...
Folks are pretty much forced to "click-through" any legalese today.
We are only deluding ourselves to think it "means" anything.
3. The current IPR rules appear to impose an unreasonable demand
on IETF participants, such as conflicting with employment
arrangements...
By the time the average attendee hears the Note Well read in a
meeting, the employer has already agreed to pay for airfare and hotel.
Do we really expect that he who pays the piper doesn't call the tune?
4. The current Note Well is too complex and apparently erroneous...
I am sympathetic to Pete's desire to impress on hearers that there
_are_ rules about disclosing IPR. But we shouldn't go so far as to
exclude Cisco employees.
5. Expecting an average IETF engineer to consult 4 different BCPs,
in order to understand what is required of them is not reasonable.
Nor is all [of] each document relevant...
It's actually worse, since BCPs can change... :^(
6. Having a range of experienced, diligent IETF participants
demonstrate substantive disagreement about the meaning of our
current IPR rules undermines whatever utility the rules might
have...
I wouldn't go quite that far... lawyers _love_ disagreements about
what a document "means." We can't avoid this! :^(
But IMHO, the Note Well read at the beginning of meetings shouldn't
attempt to summarize the rules: merely "BCP 79 as of January 2014"
seems sufficient.
(Which is not to say that a more extensive "Note Well" during the
registration process wouldn't be appropriate...)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>