[dhcwg] IPR disclosure and <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt>

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

The dhc WG has "Subscriber-ID Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent
Option", <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt>", as a work item.  This
Internet Draft has passed WG last call and IETF last call.  There is
an IPR disclosure associated with this Internet Draft,
http://ietf.org/ietf/IPR/PacketFront-IPR.txt.  The WG needs to decide
if it is willing to accept the specification in the Internet Draft
with the associated IPR disclosure.

draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt passed WG last call on 2003-09-12
and passed IETF last call on 2004-02-03.  During the IETF last call,
the IESG received a notification of an IPR disclosure related to the
Internet Draft.  Although the IPR disclosure had been published
2003-04-17, there was no general notification of that publication and,
apparently, no one in the dhc WG or the IESG was aware of the IPR
disclosure.

The dhc WG discussed the publication of the Internet Draft on the
dhcwg mailing list and there was support on both sides of the issue.
Because RFC 3667 and RFC 3668 were both ready for publication,
discussion was suspended pending publication of those new documents
related to IPR in the IETF.

The original IPR disclosure applied to two Internet Drafts,
<draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-00.txt> and <draft-ietf-dhc-
server-override-00.txt>.  The original disclosure made no mention of
any use licensing agreements for the IPR.  Concurrently with the WG
discussion on the IPR disclosure, a new IPR disclosure was published
on 2004-02-02, which refers only to
<draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-00.txt> and which includes RAND
(reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing terms.

RFC 3667, "IETF Rights in Contributions," and RFC 3668, "Intellectual
Property Rights in IETF Technology" are both relevant to the dhc WG
discussion of <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt>.

Note that the need for disclosure of the IPR issues in this case,
although the editors of the draft are not associated with the
organization submitting the IPR disclosure, is established by section
6.1.2 of RFC 3668, which requires that:

    Any individual participating in an IETF discussion who reasonably and
    personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which
    the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Cover a Contribution
    made by another person, or which such IETF participant reasonably and
    personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against
    Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a
    disclosure in accordance with this Section 6.

<draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt> contains the text required by
section 5 of RFC 3668 because of the IPR disclosure relative to the
Internet Draft. The current IPR disclosure meets the intent (if not
the letter) of section 6.4 of RFC 3668, and the licensing terms meet
the RAND requirements of section 6.5 of RFC 3668.  At this point, the
decision about whether or not to accept
<draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt> as a standard rests with the dhc
WG.

I need to assess the WG consensus for how to proceed with
<draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt>.  Each WG member should review
the Internet Draft, the IPR disclosure, RFC 3667 and RFC 3668 to form
an opinion about whether <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt> should
move forward through the standards process.  We will conduct a
discussion on the WG mailing list, to conclude on Friday, 2004-06-11.
I will use the discussion to assess the WG consensus.

- Ralph


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg