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

Stephan Wenger <> Wed, 13 April 2016 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E0612B055 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNRk6ogxYnat for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7439912E12F for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.453.26; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:06 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0453.030; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:06 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Michael Cameron <>, John C Klensin <>, Alissa Cooper <>, Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Topic: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Index: AQHRlaupKR9yu1RueEWA9RrAiHSISp+IOm6A//+ks4A=
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 125c8550-23d6-498c-4a9d-08d363d70c24
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR17MB0274; 5:bPfTqN06WLXKIHLdIgrcZqsvJLCKN2Ehg0JCgiV77P478XB2g9qfBrJuIKiWd0I/9E8b0HUIpL3aKiYYiKBCImxEv2PNGk3yPG7l7lUVEGFlcb0tbmPXC+PcdGUo9iMISUhlHPPFnadFFDCK67m2MA==; 24:EraMAIIQgT5YMi50rwg3L9H+Cs1bhOC0RMUFG659RnzOVGtD7dJ7qDSvb10XbeVitTh2FdiT0d2ohHZONA4vTK2MvkcYAB9f1eR21DitblU=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040074)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041046)(6043046); SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274;
x-forefront-prvs: 0911D5CE78
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(586003)(102836003)(3846002)(6116002)(1220700001)(1096002)(1720100001)(15975445007)(77096005)(83716003)(122556002)(92566002)(2950100001)(2900100001)(11100500001)(87936001)(5004730100002)(66066001)(54356999)(81166005)(50986999)(76176999)(82746002)(36756003)(5008740100001)(2906002)(19580395003)(5002640100001)(106116001)(19580405001)(86362001)(230783001)(10400500002)(99286002)(189998001)(33656002)(5001770100001)(4326007)(42262002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Apr 2016 20:06:06.1101 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 865fc51c-5fae-4322-98ef-0121a85df0b6
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR17MB0274
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:06:13 -0000

Hi John and Mike,

On 4/13/16, 11:32, "ietf on behalf of Michael Cameron" < on behalf of> wrote:

>I'lI try to respond to some of your other points in a later post, but one thing stood out that I'd like to address right away.   I disagree that sitting passively in a meeting and not humming could constitute "actively seeking to influence the outcome..."  

The Orlando IPRbis meeting report can be found here:

The relevant section is this:

Russ Housley: Let's take a sense of the room on this topic.  Is acting in
order to influence the outcome of the discussion, and not listening or
watching the action of others?  That includes show of hands, writing,
humming, and so on.

Strong sense of the room that active influence counts as participation,
but listening and watching does not.

I at least found the outcome of the discussion sensible then, and appropriately represented in 3979bis-08 now.

Tourism is allowed.  Sitting in the room (or on a mailing list for that matter), listing quietly, with good or ill intentions, is allowed.  Physical presence in the room (or subscription to a mailing list) does not constitute Participation.  We live with the risk of speculative patent application filings, and with people owning essential IPR being quiet and keep the IPR secret when they feel that others do enough to include their IPR in a  forthcoming RFC, and so on--all that in the name of openness, inclusiveness (including inclusiveness to newcomers on to the IETF, or the subject matter of the WG), cross fertilization and so on.  We do not want closed rooms and closed mailing lists.  The undeniable risk, and the cost associated with this, we are willing to pay.  


>Best, Mike