Re: Last Call: <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 25 January 2017 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 EAAE1129868; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:43:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 NvS4uNBtFdNo; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8C112986A; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65BB2CEBB; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:43:38 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id guMvB0foFKYl; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:43:38 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E9B2CCAF; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:43:38 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_48512CA1-CE26-442C-BE7F-E457BF11A707"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <2C1C1542-F8BC-48E1-94FF-1C95B755C1A1@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:43:37 +0200
Message-Id: <77E7F26C-E90C-4A63-B450-DDB92B037462@piuha.net>
References: <148474911031.2261.11881119527780959351.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <190f4ec8-4236-03eb-3f98-77cfa0db7c70@gmail.com> <2C1C1542-F8BC-48E1-94FF-1C95B755C1A1@ericsson.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OxdMuoWc8OfOJV1VJ9Pmzax3aQk>
Cc: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis@ietf.org, 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:43:43 -0000

Stewart,

Thanks again for your comments. Inline:

> In the body of this document you say:
> 
> j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC
>     Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026].
> 
> RFC2026 states that the drafts are removed from the directory, implying
> that after that time they are not available. Whilst that never really
> reflected reality, the IETF through its tools system actively makes these
> documents available in perpetuity. Given the legal nature of this draft
> we ought to properly note the permanent availability of these temporary
> documents.

OK. Do you have a text suggestion, or would dropping “temporary” in this
context be sufficient?

> Section 5.3.3 specifically calls out ADs but there are many others who
> fall into the same category: the GEN_ART team, the directorates of
> other areas such as SEC and OPS, and of course regular contributors that
> only read an out of area RFC when they need to use its contents.

Fair point.

> If the text is specifically going to call out ADs it ought to also call
> out those that help ADs as part of their review process.
> 
> The test says:
> 
>  An IPR disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
>  published patent applications or indicate that the disclosure is
>  based on unpublished patent applications.  The IPR disclosure must
>  also list the name(s) of the inventor(s) (with respect to issued
>  patents and published patent applications) and the specific IETF
>  Document(s) or activity affected.
> 
> In some cases that is simply impractical. For example one might
> know that IPR was filed at a previous employer, for example
> because you were on the patent review panel, but of course
> would no longer have access to the documents to tease out the
> exact identity of the patent. All that we can expect by the first
> stage discloser, perhaps filing a third party disclosure, is as
> much information as they still have available.

Right. Is there a possibility to have a different rule for 3rd party and
“regular” declarations?

> In section 7 you state
> 
>  When adopting new technologies, the participants in an IETF working
>  group are expected to evaluate all the relevant tradeoffs from their
>  perspective. Most of the time these considerations are based purely
>  on technical excellence, but IPR considerations may also affect the
>  evaluation and specific licensing terms may affect the participants'
>  opinion on the desirability of adopting a particular technology.
> 
> There is a catch 22 problem with this text and later text in the section.
> The IPR situation may indeed affect an adoption decision, but the WG
> is not allowed to discuss the terms of the licence. In some cases the
> terms of an encumbered technology may be just fine, but
> contributors making an adoption decision cannot form a view
> on this as part of the IETF process. So you can end up with
> one partly saying yes because of IPR, another saying no
> because of IPR and neither allowed to explain their position as
> part of the IETF process.

Good point. But I see no way around that. There are plenty of
good reasons why negotiation about license is not a good
idea to do in IETF.

Also, end results matter. If a draft fails to be adopted,
I’ve seen companies post not just updated drafts but
also updated declarations that ultimately led to adoption.

That’s a fine mode of operation, and one way out of your
catch-22.

Jari