|
Re: Last Call: <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice
2017-01-26 16:50:43
On 27/01/2017 09:56, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
this was worked out at great length many years ago - there may be a time to
revisit the assumption but
maybe not right now when we are trying to bring the basic ruleset up to date
I'd agree that this is not the moment to revisit something so basic,
but for the record I would oppose changing this. It is a pragmatic way
of avoiding any situation in which the IESG or the IETF is effectively
deciding whether or not a patent claim is valid.
Brian
Scott
On Jan 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, David Rudin (CELA)
<David(_dot_)Rudin(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
Thanks. Didn't see it in the diff. But my question remains. Why is IESG
making this presumption?
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O. Bradner [mailto:sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:42 PM
To: David Rudin (CELA) <David(_dot_)Rudin(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 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
this is not new - see RFC 3979 section 4.1
Scott
On Jan 26, 2017, at 3:15 PM, David Rudin (CELA)
<David(_dot_)Rudin(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
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=dra
ft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10
Jari Arkko, sponsoring AD for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis
|
|