Jari
I agree with the proposed resolutions , but would like to reply on three
points:
On 22/02/2017 21:40, Jari Arkko wrote:
* Question from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding item B in
Section 3.3:
B. Such Contributor represents that there are no limits to the
Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and
agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known
to the
Contributor.
SB> I do not understand what point B above means.
It means that if you (for instance) make an IPR declaration
and say something about the license conditions, you or whoever
is helping you to make that statement, can actually make those
statements.
I don’t think a document change is needed.
I am suspect that I am not alone in finding the original legal language
impenetrable, whilst finding your explanatory text crystal clear. I would
request you take a another look at this point, perhaps adding your text
by way of clarification.
* Question from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding Section
5.7:
5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions.
.... then the Contributor must accompany
such oral Contribution with an oral declaration that he/she is
aware
of relevant IPR in as much detail as reasonably possible
SB> I do not recall ever seeing a purely verbal disclosure, and
wonder
SB> what the process is, how this is archived and how it is
discovered?
Sometimes it happens that a presenter makes a statement,
e.g. that the audience should note that some IPRs may apply
and that a written declaration is forthcoming.
I suppose the requirement would that the WG take particular care to
minute the IPR
disclosure so it is on record. At least if it is the minutes it is
searchable and from
the minutes you can get to the recoding to get the exact words.
* Suggestion from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding Section
5.5:
5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure
A. Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is
helpful
if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the
IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license.
Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon
approval by
the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF
specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the
right to
implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with
respect
to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and
otherwise reasonable and non- discriminatory license, or b)
under
a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment,
or c) without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder
(e.g., a covenant not to sue).
SB> One of the most popular IPR terms is so called MAD. It is
surprising
SB> that you do not call this out.
…
Some common
conditions include 1) terms that are fair, reasonable and non-
discriminatory, and which may bear royalties or other financial
obligations (FRAND or RAND); 2) royalty-free terms that are
otherwise
fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND-z); and 3)
commitments
not to assert declared IPR.
SB> One of the most common (at least in the Routing area) is
non-assert
SB> unless the other party asserts (so called MAD)
Personally, I don’t view MAD as a term quite in the same style
and technical specificity as, say, RAND or RF. I would suggest
not adopting this.
(Non-assert on the other hand is a more
technical term, but I also have not seen calls for adding that
from others.)
The reason I raise this is because it is the most common licensing term
in the lower layers
being the standard term by at least three of the major vendors. I am
sure it has a technical
name, presumably mutual-non-assert.
- Stewart