Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Sat, 26 March 2016 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E973512D0D8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IDhCBffJaMWF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7584312D1E5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B687C7B66 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:36:04 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LpKownJDLvqK for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:36:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:71cc:9e9d:882a:5e52] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:71cc:9e9d:882a:5e52]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44CBF7C779B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:36:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <DC9B799D-A1EF-457C-B791-9F103FDA7CD6@vigilsec.com> <56F59441.8030901@gmail.com> <FDF935D9B80D3F03F2A93CD8@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <tsl4mbuxpbd.fsf@mit.edu>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <56F65800.6050001@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:36:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tsl4mbuxpbd.fsf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GvF5zwuxEWccWqNjDSSMKq_W-LM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:36:10 -0000

If the documents clearly define the term "design team" as teams that are
created by a decision in an IETF process, I have very few problem
extending "IETF contribution" to contributions to the design team.

If (as I've sometimes seen) everyone who meets to hash out an idea wants
to call themselves + their friends is a "design team", then I see a
problem with the extension.

The lunchtime "bar BOF" would be a nice test case - arranged by WG
chairs over the WG (or IETF non-WG) mailing list, it would be an IETF
activity with IETF contribution; arranged between friends on the way out
of the preceding WG meeting, it would (I think) not be.



Den 25. mars 2016 21:41, skrev Sam Hartman:
>>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> writes:
> 
>     John> --On Saturday, March 26, 2016 08:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
>     John> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     >> It's clear that any design team *output* is a contribution.  But
>     >> if a group of friends have a chat over lunch, not as a design
>     >> team mandated by WG chairs, and one of them mentions a silly idea
>     >> that is rejected in favour of a good idea that the group later
>     >> proposes to the WG, is that silly idea a contribution? I don't
>     >> think so.
> 
> If it's a design team that thinks of itself as a design team, I really
> want the silly idea to count as an IETF contribution.
> If I get together with you to do IETF work, part of why I'm willing to
> do so is because we've agreed that you'll disclose any IP.  If I'm doing
> IETF work with you, I want you to be obligated to disclose by the time
> you're advocating for a specific position.
> 
> As an individual who may some day again contribute to the IETF, that's
> really important to me.
> 
> Now, there's ambiguity.  I realize a group of friends involved in the
> IETF can get together for purposes other than IETF work.
> 
> However, speaking for myself, I'd be less willing  to do work in an IETF
> where a lunchtime discussion for IETF work didn't count as contributions
> than one where it did.
> 
> I think waiting for an idea to be presented in an ID, at the microphone,
> or on a list is too late.
> A lot of advocacy for positions happens before then, and you can get in
> bad IPR situations if you are not required to disclose by the time that
> advocacy starts.
> 
> --Sam
>