Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 23:15 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 8A7DC12DE5C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] 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 f8e-ghu43kZo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AD2E12DE78 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aqU0N-0003pA-4J; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:15:27 -0400
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:15:22 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Michael Cameron <michael.cameron@ericsson.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Message-ID: <ACCBB67844B9C997E5128176@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <570EA63E.6090601@joelhalpern.com>
References: <16849BC54F958DF4DB61843A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <570EA63E.6090601@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VnzysQ_ius3qrgum8fUrRg7JBNg>
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:15:38 -0000
--On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 16:04 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > John, your memory / perception of the discussion around > participation differs markedly from mine. > Your interpretation that even sitting quietly is still > attempting to influence the outcome is specifically at > variance with the discussion that gave rise to that wording, > as I heard it. ok. I certainly agree that sitting quietly would be pushing it and defer to your memory and that of Stephen and the Orlando minutes. Again, what I think is more important is avoiding getting into a discussion of "did he or did he not actually hum?" Or do you think humming is not "attempting to influence a decision" and, if so, how loudly is needed? See below. > I would also note htat any chair who tries to use the number > of people who don't say anything as aqn indication of any > aspect of a WG decision is simply asking for trouble. Which > is why most chairs, when trying to get a sense of the room on > something, always ask the obverse question, and sometimes even > ask "how many people don't care." I absolutely agree with that. But the last time I heard a chair try to take only a "for" hum, only to be asked by the group to ask the negative question was, hmm, in a WG last week. It may be a bad practice, but it isn't an uncommon behavior. Note that these distinctions will get increasingly important as remote participation (as distinct from remote watching or observing or lurking increases). For example, last week, Meetecho required that I check a box to distinguish between being "a participant" and "an observer". If I check the "participant" box, but don't get myself in queue, say anything substantive on Jabber, or click on "hum" does "solely to the extent of such participation" [3979bis section 1(f)] protect me from IPR obligations regardless of what 3979bis section 1(k) might say? If the answer is "yes, I am protected", how substantive do my Jabber comments have to be to to constitute participation? Can I say "the audio isn't working" without that being a comment to the WG? Just to be clear about how muddled this is, I note that 39796bis Section 3.3 is titled "Obligations on Participants" and starts "By Participating in IETF, each Participant..." but then the specific statements that follow talk only about Contributors. Given the level of hair-splitting we seem to be getting into, could that be taken to mean that non-Contributor Participants are really not Participants? At the other extreme, Section 6 says "Since disclosure is required for anyone making a Contribution or _participating in IETF activities_..." (emphasis mine) [1]. Note that doesn't say, e.g., "entangled with a particular document or even WG or trying to influence its outcome", it refers to IETF activities generally. Now, showing up at the Social, or coming to a meeting break and eating the cookies is fairly clearly "participating in an IETF activity". Or, if you take the 3979 wording as better reflecting the intent, involvement in a discussion of meeting locations (with not participation in the IETF's technical work at all) is "participating in IETF discussions). Now a sentence further on adds "about a technology", but that doesn't seem to modify the earlier sentences or to actually add much to "disclosure is required". Now I don't know if Section 13 of 3979bis is considered normative, but, if it is, we have yet another definition, i.e., "Participation...At a high level, suggested that anyone who says something on a list or in a WG meeting is required to make IPR disclosures". Now, given that or just the text earlier in 3979bis or, for that matter, in 3979, please answer the following questions: (i) If an AD sends a note to a WG list that reads "We are debating whether the WG needs to meet at IETF 97", does that constitute participating in all of the work of the WG? Any of the work? The current text of 3979bis fairly clearly says "yes" because of the sweeping obligations it puts on ADs but we have been debating that. (ii) If someone stands up in a WG meeting and says "would people please be more careful to announce their names clearly before speaking", is that different from "saying something... in a WG meeting"? How about if a remote participant says exactly the same thing on Jabber? Good sense says that it clearly is different from participation that would incur disclosure obligations (especially if the sections of IETF 86 minutes quoted by Steve count), but one can't derive that from the text of 3979bis (or, AFAICT, 3979). (iii) If an AD, via the tracking machinery, posts a note that says, roughly, "Joe Blow has no objection to draft-ietf-foo-barbaz-99" and that note, as is contemporary practice, is posted to the foo WG mailing list, isn't that "saying something on a list"? Note that saying exactly the same thing, in the same way, in 2006, would not have, by itself, incurred any obligation (or any posting) because the tracker didn't routinely copy things to WG mailing lists. On the other other hand, if an AD chose to explicitly tell a WG about her decision on a particular document, that would fairly clearly be a Contribution even under 3979. (iv) If a remote participant enters something into Jabber preceded by "MIC" and someone in the room stands up and reads it, has the latter person thereby said something in a WG meeting and therefore incurred participation and disclosure obligations? To the extent to which I agree with Michael that people should have clear expectations about when they are, or are not, expected to disclose, the above suggests that things have gotten rather muddled. I'm suggesting that is exactly the case, that we need to return to principles, and that those principles need to not depend on "well, I didn't hum and therefore don't have to disclose" or, much worse, "you can't prove I hummed audibly and therefore I don't have to disclose". best, john john [1] That comes almost directly from the slight different statement in RFC 3979 Section 7, which reads "Since disclosure is required for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions...". It is not clear to me which of the two is narrower or if the rephrasing is a change in intent.
- Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("In… Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Scott Bradner
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Sam Hartman
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Scott Bradner
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Scott O. Bradner
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Michael Cameron
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Michael Cameron
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Alissa Cooper
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … joel jaeggli
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Eggert, Lars
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Barry Leiba
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Barry Leiba
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Barry Leiba
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Michael Cameron
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Ben Campbell
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Scott Bradner
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Barry Leiba
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … joel jaeggli
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Michael Cameron
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … joel jaeggli
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Alissa Cooper
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Alissa Cooper
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Michael Cameron
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Michael Cameron
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … John C Klensin
- RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … S Moonesamy
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Jari Arkko
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stephan Wenger
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Stewart Bryant
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt … Pete Resnick