Re: Ballot: The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) to Proposed Standard

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

> >> maybe this is just a minor nit, but:
> 
> >> > Working Group Summary
> >> >
> >> >    This protocol is the result of an effort in the PPP Working group.
> >> >    The protocol is subject to certain patent claims from the Motorola
> >> >    Corporation.
> 
> >> Just for the record, seems like it should instead say:
> 
> >>    The Motorola Corporation has
> >>    informed the IETF that they may infringe on certain patents held by
> >>    Motorola, specificlally U.S. patents 5,245,614 and 5,130,993.
> 
> >> so we don't seem to be taking a position on whether the patents are
> >> valid or whether they apply to this case.
> 
> Personally, I still maintain approving these I-Ds that do NOT contain
> any information pertaining to Motorola Patent Claims (they don't even
> contain the word "patent") is not a good thing, and not having the
> point-of-contact in the I-Ds do a dis-service to those folks who will
> be implementing the protocols.
> 
> Then again, I could be wrong.

I agree.  I'd like to see such RFCs include

a) a brief warning about possible patent claims at the beginning of the 
document, referring the reader to an appendix for more details.

b) an appendix to the document, added by IESG or whomever, stating
that 

+ so-and-so has notified IESG claiming they have patents on the
  technology, and expressly stating that IESG or IETF makes
  no judgement on the validity of such claims.

+ whether and under what terms the patent holder has agreed to
  license the technology  (if they won't disclose the terms,
  whatever statement they've given us to make us think they're
  being "fair".)

+ further progression and continuance of this protocol on the
  standards track may depend on whether the patent holder is
  believed to have licensed its technology fairly

+ implementors who wish to report on whether the technology was
  licensed fairly should send a message to iesg.  (note that both
  those who do think the technology was fairly licensed and those
  that don't will have an incentive to send such reports)
  (I'm sure the lawyers will love this one!)

Keith