I'd like to better understand the reasoning behind the changes in 4(D).
Previously, the IESG did not make any determination regarding whether terms
were reasonable and non-discriminatory. The new text in that section now
includes:
"If the two unrelated implementations of the specification that are required to
advance from Proposed Standard to Standard have been produced by different
organizations or individuals, or if the "significant implementation and
successful operational experience" required to advance from Proposed Standard
to Standard has been achieved, the IESG will presume that the terms are
reasonable and to some degree non-discriminatory. Note that this also applies
to the case where multiple implementers have concluded that no licensing is
required."
It's not clear to me what IETF gains by making this presumption, especially
given that the availability of two or more implementations does not mean that
the implementers did any patent due diligence or licensing around the
implementation. It does, however, potentially expose IESG to risks in the
event of patent litigation if implementers are basing their decisions on IESG's
presumption.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:52 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual
Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice
You've seen the last call message come through, but as the AD responsible for
this document, I wanted to follow-up with a description of where I think we are
with the document.
This document went through a last call process in spring 2016, with a fair
number of comments. We've taken the feedback in, and being less busy with the
transition work that was undergoing last summer, have returned with a new
document that we believe addresses those issues. The changes are substantial
enough though that we think that a new last call is necessary.
Note that given some textual reorganisation, the document is difficult to
compare to the original RFC. There is a changes section, but having a more
detailed listing would be beneficial.
We have promised to provide this detailed section, and will do so within a week
from now.
The spring 2016 comments have been listed in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg100236.html
along with some tentative solutions that were given for the editors. With some
further discussion, I'm listing the main changes to the document from the
previous last call below:
* Stephen Farrell's concern re: remote vs. in-person attendees
was resolved without text changes (Jari's mail on March 22)
* Russ Housley's concern re: "IETF sanctioned" was resolved
per Brian's and Harald's suggestions (Brian's mail on March 26).
* Russ Housley's concern re: changes from the previous RFC
section is valid (Russ's mail on March 25), and we will be acting
on that as explained above.
* Gonzalo Camarillo's concern re: ADs being assumed to read
all documents in their area seemed valid and was fixed.
We think that is incorrect if the future BCP on this topic explicitly
rules everything in the area to be something where the AD
participates in, even if he or she might not even be the AD
for the group in question.
We used a variation Spencer's wording (Spencer's mail on
March 30).
OLD:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a
working group chair or Area Director constitutes "Participating"
in all activities of the relevant working group or area.
NEW:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a
working group chair or Area Director constitutes "Participating"
in all activities of the relevant working group or working groups
he or she is responsible for in an area.
* A follow-up to Gonzalo's concern was raised later in the
discussion re: ADs often seeing the materials late in the process.
There seemed to be support for adding this to the document, which
we have done:
NEW:
By the nature of their office, IETF area directors may become
aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF
Last Call or during IESG review) and, therefore and in such
cases, cannot be expected to disclose any IPR Covering those
Contributions until they become aware of them.
* Alissa Cooper's editorial comments from her mail on April 1
were acted up, except the first issue which was follow-up to
Gonzalo's issue.
* There was some discussion of including the IRTF in the document
in the same go, but the authors and the AD came to the
conclusion that it introduces too many dependencies.
Also, worth discussing during the last call, is that the new document
refers to stream managers that have not really been well defined
elsewhere.
* Pete Resnick suggested to put back in the three principles to
Section 2 that were deleted from the previous RFC (April 11).
We've done so; we should only make substantive changes
to the original RFC when there's clear consensus to do so.
* Pete Resnick suggested to put back the material from
RFC 3979 Section 4.1 that were deleted from the
previous RFC (April 11), which we've also done.
* Note that Pete Resnick had a concern on forcing people to
document applicability to the contribution 5.4.2 (April 11). This may
require further discussion, although I personally am inclined to agree
with Pete. I had posted a response on April 25, for which there
was no other response. Needs further discussion during 2nd last call.
* Pete Resnick had a concern on adding the word "all" to Section 7
(April 11). This was an oversight, and has been corrected.
* Section 7 has been amended to be clear that its latter part is for
information only.
The changes to spring 2016 version of the I-D can be seen here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08&url2=draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10
Jari Arkko, sponsoring AD for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis