Re: [I2nsf] IPR Statements about I2NSF documents

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

> From: Yoav Nir [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 1:27 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> Subject: IPR Statements about I2NSF documents
> 
> Hi
> 
> Yesterday we got 5 IPR statements ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) related to the
> following drafts respectively:
> •
> • draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm
> • draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model
> • draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
> • draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm
> • draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
> 
> All of these are WG documents, and one of them (the capability data model
> draft) is in WGLC.  See [6] and RFC 8179 for more information about IPR
> disclosures.
> 
> All the disclosures claim that the patents or patent applications mentioned
> may be necessary for implementation of the drafts. Neither the chairs nor
> anyone else in the IETF is considered competent to evaluate such claims or
> the validity of any patents, so I suggest that in this thread we avoid bringing
> this up. What may be concerning is that the licensing policy for these
> disclosures is "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All
> Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee”, which makes such technologies
> problematic to many implementers, especially non-commercial ones.
> 
> To quote from section 7 of RFC 8179:
>    In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
>    claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
>    royalty-free licensing.  However, to solve a given technical problem,
>    IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt a technology as to
>    which IPR claims have been made if they feel that this technology is
>    superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free
>    licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.
> 
> 
> So this message is to start a discussion about how the I2NSF working group
> would like to handle this disclosure. Continuing as before and moving to
> publication is the default outcome of this discussion, but the WG is required
> to evaluate its position about these disclosures. This is what this thread is for.

Linda/Yoav: thanks for sending this note out to the WG given these 5 IPR disclosures.  It have nothing more to add as you have precisely summarized the next steps.  I'd only reiterate that the WG needs to come to consensus on a per draft basis on whether "to adopt a technology as to which IPR claims have been made ... and this technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims ... to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses" per RFC8179.

Current/Future draft shepherds: (if it comes to it) Please ensure that this consensus is documented appropriate in a shepherd write-up

Thanks,
Roman

> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Linda & Yoav
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3553/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3557/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3556/
> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3555/
> [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3554/
> [6] https://www.ietf.org/standards/ipr/