Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt

Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com> Wed, 11 February 2009 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9443A69D2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:49:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X3c7gVKLPwJ6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25733A67E9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 25so27813eya.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:49:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7gdeuUnmPtdi7W4visi0RNyZPA8bjNwZVUYGooiVYOQ=; b=fD4upNE5YMjj9OgIsyz7MWtxI8DP7QtNu2iKz1R0hwJDsZZwSdimV25ekP8055FhDq Ky+S+EHx0tP5cRv6FRI+cMUk8gysIIO7xUZeKB7XPygp7DbnJBFhgrSNsUyVgZ0zYHZM +FHUXaQItoK+4GwFncFbvcaHm5sulEfjeCgB8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=euvUlCnTplpcn1K8qeERqFUmPZmbUXLV+NQQkjG2oHNitdG44sc1mlG9bVXAfjZt85 dSYS+e1UrX3hxNwUgYgCyuhwYVluzeaoYZkQAGwN4dRjIUP03eCy5vLoWBUaf6GW9+09 PQdftd/1CPW17K7Gh7p9KD2FZ70Xl/utw+Des=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.120.7 with SMTP id s7mr1033521ebc.78.1234370966332; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:49:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C5B8A389.3033A%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <a1820cc70902110621j73fd6200q25b843b0df497e5@mail.gmail.com> <C5B8A389.3033A%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:49:26 +0000
Message-ID: <a1820cc70902110849r73f825aei555d011586757ed@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt
From: Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:49:25 -0000

Hi

2009/2/11 Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, "Bob Jolliffe" <bobjolliffe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF
>> standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in
>> which they are intended.
>>
>
> The phrase "freely implementable and usable" may be the key
> misconception/misunderstanding by the FSF people.  As several hundred IPR
> disclosures with RAND terms against issued standards track RFCs show, the
> consensus (at least in those cases) in the IETF has been, and still is, that
> IETF RFCs do not necessarily have to be royalty-free or unencumbered.
> Personally, I view those as "free" just as well; my definition of freedom is
> somewhat different than the FSF's definition.

I agree that the consensus has been (and still is) that IETF standards
do not necessarily have to be royalty-free or unencumbered.  I also
think this is unfortunate.  And yet
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/bcp/bcp79.txt does express a clear
preference that "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."

I suspect that this preference is not solely for ideological reasons
or because of any misconceptions or misunderstandings.  But rather for
clear, practical and pragmatic reasons.

I think a concern here is that the IPR disclosure in this case is
crafted in such a way as to give the impression that you can "freely
implement" the standard ("No licence requirements") when in fact you
can't use it to perform authorisation based on legally binding
agreements.  This does seem to be simply misleading and I am not sure
why they have crafted such a statement.  Surely, to clear the low bar
of permissability, all they need to do is disclose the patent and not
offer any licencing information at all.  I'm sorry if I smell a rat.

>
> I fully understand that this is not aligned with FSF's position on standards
> in general.  The way to address this misalignment is to work in the IETF
> towards an FSF-compatible patent regime, and not rant about one specific
> draft that somehow got on the FSF's campaign radar.  The best way, IMO, to
> work towards such a regime, would be that FSF activists, instead of wasting
> their time on mailbombing, invent great new concepts, protocols, and write
> them down in the form of Internet drafts, and make them freely available in
> the IETF and elsewhere.
>

I think this is a question of governance.  Firstly it's not just the
FSF who are concerned about patents in standards.  The South African
government, for example, have a strong commitment to using standards
which are available under royalty free terms.  As do many other state
and other actors.  And we all have an interest in using the internet
and IETF standards.  Not all of these stakeholders have the time or
expertise to engage more fully in IETF standards development.  But
they still have legitimate cause to be concerned about appropriation
of basic internet standards.  And to raise those concerns on the
mailing lists of the IETF.  It seems you (and some others) are
suggesting that in order to be heard at the IETF you need to clear
some sort of hurdle.  I fully agree that direct participation and
involvement is the best way to influence and drive agendas in
standards organisations.  But those who do participate must also
understand that they have some responsibility to a broader community.
Particularly when we are talking about internet standards.  I think
the IETF strives to be more than a place in which a sufficiently
driven and self-interested person or organisation can promote
standards which advance their economic or ideological position.  In
fact I know it does.

Regards
Bob

>
> Regards,
> Stephan
>
>
>
>
>