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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 04 April 2016 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E2E12D858 for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14CXGHthMtwy for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10C0512D852 for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fe3so150809699pab.1 for <>; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nuY53Xt1Ov43UVw/VdBNr425SPh56dBq44RfuD6tQgI=; b=DIsHSW+jXiBTmnMyBVYElAHMlf3JUAQouh8SPkRgtag1qiXiHzNhrcD1kjO9y8lx4x Kr+JAZjA3jt4XTGVBduc9DgothW/V6dmfVYBRemcgS8CrjQactcaEeVwbABgdDIN58y4 R6obPZS2+cyYDmWBZQIdYQtfvnV+835N9ZdRuEzRNCv4KYa1WITikAprzvBHT03zYw9s iuH4bAn243pyoi0X3ttJ6Djurni2Q6XvWdOOTqh54lOLwqA5GCd3SVKE5WblX7WWeXgG irS5fQug0uyM7RnO/fMb213IEvnkXjcX2v0xIzlLKXJJ/ZVlfmoJsMOusYKI87EB+p1Y qGxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nuY53Xt1Ov43UVw/VdBNr425SPh56dBq44RfuD6tQgI=; b=j8CYEx+8t2nQNLTfV9A510bMqrmZpED3YRcDA8aNd8uSH5xVDWV5R+yWE4Ktv1hSCI F1hB7CK7C96HvPIQNdjhKZ6E0R8ET90qV86mgBbDbr7Ur63Ic1P68BgCHZBoNBe7gP09 eiitmutH2Mwl1NKFQsVZRjX71byhJxW2dxxHZOtKOV5BH9GUNz5RlXUFYoCtg/XQrAH5 lQi7zzwT+t2qMAwC0EoUEFOYxF+U897/sSrvucrJ8Cby+N1JgtE0Y96sEAQEozWv8qDp 6dGlWhPEhyE3jTOp7T3x/qoSF0SwSh6JQdON6hDeihS63ER49dt1wGOCNsXtaiD4bdh5 cutg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLo86plZ0D1Tgdz9KkAnTL+FT6Alyr7itMP2G3Se7eg25HhdHvoIastZzHYZOQXMQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id te9mr7193316pac.62.1459800998605; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6365:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6365:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id tn5sm2263960pac.32.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: John C Klensin <>, Gonzalo Camarillo <>, Jari Arkko <>, IETF <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:16:34 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:16:40 -0000

On 05/04/2016 07:15, John C Klensin wrote:

> FWIW, I note that undisclosed IPR is only one of the reasons for
> such an isolation principle.  If an AD works for an organization
> that has not announced, but is about to release, a product that
> would interact with a WG's proposed work and could not disclose
> the planned product (even if no IPR claims were intended and
> whether the WG ultimately produced a standard that aligned with
> the product or not), I'd want that AD isolated from influence
> over decisions about that WG too.  In a way, that makes the rule
> for ADs just like that for ordinary WG participants: the price
> of contributing or otherwise participating in a way that could
> influence decisions is disclosure.

Well, *exactly*. That's why I don't think that ADs or WGCs need to
be called out in any particular way: they participate and therefore
if they are reasonably and personally aware of IPR, they must disclose
(and if they can't disclose, they need to stop participating in
that particular case).

> Another aspect of my reaction to Barry's comment is that, given
> other changes in the IETF in the last 11 years, I'd really like
> to see 3979bis recast as a matter of ethical obligations to the
> IETF and fellow participants, with specific legal (or other)
> requirements stated as corollaries to those ethical principles
> rather than as standalone rules.

I'm sympathetic with that idea, but not being a lawyer I don't know
if it's feasible to truly separate them.