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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 04 April 2016 04:55 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 9845512D10A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 h4E8gYcULH1F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22f.google.com (mail-pf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C100512D0F9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e128so114166505pfe.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1TEa3H+rvfEAYnzNXlQh5SU7eTv+1KfdkngxyUcpLlE=; b=hg2XWQ557eVFJFv0Med+2LVmgvl+S258sQ1m7hrDexFXxkEAL1vfYq8L6CgXMWIkAQ 4KmOrO/KjjYtjtmOp1rqYyVayZFPb6AAuPMP95BLE8CVYaPgAUQwGiNlnhP9P2VyZ0mD PBVa38hnZHkdztyp9PF4rbIvRHXxVLNIEdQoIbMP8HX6g8IHl4r+viMg6v6J603ngP64 yboVjT7cKvAQctCtMoQdSXYAjxfj9J1hYC1a7QlObG05SxaMCsEkXq4p6ozxHZqEwE+t KF+YSbmA/TZ8VFesUiwBbFUZBOBaWdZwiX2/zbPjuhT9DPoGLv4Vc6wcgRtC4bMTKyGi R7xg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1TEa3H+rvfEAYnzNXlQh5SU7eTv+1KfdkngxyUcpLlE=; b=MGWENNApO9b6x0N/UpkWP3+S9Jq8rMdsTLzEgvGksezg44lDPv42OujxV/X/+x7xF4 Rd5GbQ1llHP8ip67mCbbfhFk60qKnPqVUcnlF4M1sBFjflThD83Mxd9svJXwJR1DO0os zNLPKWozcd/wRw9InnfLhjgck8G68uxfsBq1MV4Q4NWrKe6/cY4OwtrvarSgmu5+iRja X8hrAWFGWn4E8QkDWxg9CC1kHmzbASm5w89dTg6C/wZml1/KyyanidPL7unyVSEK05uV jCx9RhMJdJYo3mf6iqqLws33B8XXpCDY/rJ//b6kgwhoQQQVIe7kd+8wRabvcVRDUSsy 1ioA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI3lQCZ7Z7Z3obuc5VlDZ8uN1Yu8lIlfEgePmaQUi+5Nhe1Xg0V5dLvX05UPwP7UQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.72.83 with SMTP id v80mr17760276pfa.113.1459745756333; Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:483d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:483d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 27sm35690217pfo.58.2016.04.03.21.55.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 03 Apr 2016 21:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <7A6961E0-CCA6-4D1D-878A-176004AE2BAE@cooperw.in> <57006AF2.7020400@gmail.com> <4DC1ED89-32FB-4B73-8922-C24713AEEC21@stewe.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5701F3D7.5090107@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:55:51 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DC1ED89-32FB-4B73-8922-C24713AEEC21@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HcGApPP60gqW1vfkyhFDdsSMBEU>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 04:55:58 -0000

On 04/04/2016 02:33, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/2/16, 21:59, "ietf on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Alissa,
>> On 01/04/2016 11:38, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> ...
>>> 1) I agree with other commenters' concerns about the definition of "participating" with respect to WG chairs and ADs. In particular in the context of section 6, this seems like it could limit the pool of people who can stand for AD roles, because you're not allowed to participate in cases where you won't be able to disclose, but you have no idea a priori what WGs will get chartered in your area and what work items they might take up.
>>
>> I don't see what's new about this - it's always been an awkward point. I worked for
>> a major patent-generating company while I was in the IESG ten years ago, and I had
>> to pay attention to this. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, but I don't see that
>> tightening up the language really makes the problem any worse. (However, I still
>> don't see any need to state the obvious, i.e. that WG Chairs and ADs are
>> participants, unless they recuse themselves on a particular matter.)
> 
> My feeling is that a WG chair absolutely should be in the loop of everything going on in its WG, and therefore should be viewed as “participating” with respect to any Contribution made to the WG or related to the WG.
> 
> With respect to ADs, I find Brian’s argument generally compelling.  However, I don’t know how an AD can or should recuse himself/herself from a particular matter in the sense of shedding his/her possible obligations under BCP79.  AFAICT, historically, when an AD recuses himself/herself, it was often based on too much knowledge and interest in a certain technology, with respect to personnel behind the technology, and so on.  In such a case, a recuse from IPR obligations of any type would not be desirable.

Agreed, but an AD might have no choice but to abstain "for cause" if s/he is caught
between the IETF rules and an employer rule that patent applications are not published.
If we don't accept that reality, we would be reducing our volunteer pool even more.

   Brian

> The more we relax the disclosure requirements, the more we enable gaming the policy by a “company man”--and that form of gaming
may not come up until years after the person has resigned from the AD position, rendering the IETF’s internal sanction mechanism
inefficient.
> 
> Stephan
> 
>>
>>    Brian
>>