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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Wed, 13 April 2016 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5A312DDE6 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uB57YaGud1ky for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA7D012B055 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFBB520105; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1460577861; bh=knoCxVXymIiX7izneRZhuSNpz4ZqKcDyLNTLnoDn+dM=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OrWUDqr8I7UtovrZG5FuiCjIl6YY7e+fe3bzrJ4/jxaCLGUgu6x9uL/qDzGnZ2VAs Z6M6PmbmC5hnpo7xswCI2ivvEa30yJhBSd0YGwPcw+xoUkm7Ra+3K+L/D5/rXvFfS0 jIssAFjGEorbZpltoJIUJ+pasP3yPoHFHTzvsgeM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6BC31C0346; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: John C Klensin <>, Michael Cameron <>, Alissa Cooper <>, Jari Arkko <>
References: <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:04:14 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:04:23 -0000

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.

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."


On 4/13/16 1:41 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 17:33 +0000 Michael Cameron
> <> wrote:
>> John said:
>> As a random member of the community, whether I'm participating
>> in a WG, or even actively monitoring it, is fairly clear.  If,
>> for example, I'm attending its meetings (f2f or remotely) or
>> signed up for its mailing list, the community should be able
>> to assume that I'm watching the work in that WG and should be
>> required to make relevant IPR disclosures even if I don't
>> actually say anything or otherwise generate Contributions.
>> My response:
>> I appreciate that some are advocating for what they want the
>> rules to be, but let's level set as to what they are.
>> Attending meetings, being signed up for mailing lists or
>> watching work in a WG does not obligate one to make any IPR
>> disclosures.  That was discussed in detail at the last IETF
>> meeting when the IPR Group met (Orlando, IIRC). The IPR
>> disclosure obligation arises only with respect to known IPR
>> reading on Contributions (for Contributors) and for
>> non-Contributors, the disclosure obligation only applies to
>> known IPR reading on a draft on which such non-Contributor
>> actively seeks to influence the outcome of the disposition of
>> a draft (active participation).
> Again, you are splitting hairs in a very lawyer-like fashion
> (you may take that as a complement if you like).   But I suggest
> that, e.g., responding to a request for a hum, or even not
> humming when a WG Chair asks a question and does not ask for
> hums on the opposite or on any other alternatives, constitutes
> "actively seeking to influence the outcome...".  If I'm sitting
> in the WG session at a time a WG Chair asks
> consensus-determining questions and I don't want to be counted
> as for, against, or indifferent (itself a potentially
> influencing position), I'd best head for the door rather than
> sitting there.
> My recollection of that last meeting of the IPR WG (and several
> before it, both immediately before and over the years) is
> apparently a bit different from yours.   My understanding of the
> discussion there was that the community's intent is that, if one
> knew of IPR that might reasonably be expected to bear on the
> work of a WG or a particular document, the expectation was that
> one would disclose (with the level of that expectation
> deliberately lower if one was not directly connected to the IPR
> than if one was directly connected.  If, for some reason,
> disclosure was impossible and/or would violate other
> commitments, then one was expected to be clearly isolated from
> the work generally and from any reasonable doubts about whether
> one had influenced a decision or attempted to do so.    IMO, the
> alternatives lead to madness, e.g., can you imagine wanting to
> know who was sitting next to someone so as to be able to ask is
> he or she hummed, made silly faces, or otherwise tried to
> influence the outcome of a discussion about a draft?
> Now, I think there is a separate issue, which is when the cases
> arise from which the IETF threatens to apply sanctions for
> violating the rules.  I think we need to deal with the gray
> areas in which someone made a reasonable judgment call
> (including cases in which there is question about whether
> first-party or third-party rules apply) in a reasoned, flexible,
> and generous way, reserving the punishments and nasty behavior
> for clear cases or patterns of abuse.     I think our actual
> practice has been consistent with that approach.
>> John said:
>> If you are the AD responsible for a WG, then I think the
>> community gets to assume that you know what its work items
>> are, have approved document editors, and have at least read
>> the abstracts of the various drafts, i.e., that you are
>> participating.  If you are some other AD in the same area,
>> well, areas differ a lot and over time.  In some cases, ADs
>> shadow each other as a mutual backup arrangements and I'd
>> expect to be able to treat all ADs in the same area as
>> "participating" in all WGs.  In others, WGs get divided up
>> among ADs, after which the area might as well be as many
>> separate ones as there are ADs.  At IETF evaluation time, any
>> ADs who record a position other that "abstain" on a spec, or
>> to engage in any IESG discussion about it, has presumably
>> studied that spec closely enough to incur disclosure
>> obligations if IPR is known to them because making a decision
>> to adopt (or not) is clearly "participation".  The same issue
>> might exist with Co-chairs of a WG with many tasks.  I'd
>> normally assume that each one is familiar with and
>> participating in every work item, but it isn't hard to imagine
>> situations in which work might be split up along clear
>> boundaries with one co-chair getting involved in the work of
>> the other only at around the time of Last Call if then.
>> My response:
>> We need to be careful not to place on Area Directors
>> unreasonable burdens and obligations.  Further, there needs to
>> be certainty as to what the obligations are.   The obligations
>> imposed on Area Directors to declare known IPR should be
>> limited to those activities in which they actively
>> participate.  I'll defer to the ADs, but I would think that an
>> AD acting on a recommendation or advice from a WG as to how to
>> proceed on a Specification, without more, does not necessarily
>> rise to the level of active participation.
> That would be great, but it is just not consistent with how the
> IESG functions.   ADs are just not expected to passively accept
> WG recommendations, at least unless they have been very actively
> involved in the WG and is management.  Instead, they are called
> upon to evaluate those recommendations and make recommendations
> to the community about them.  That is just not a passive,
> "without more" sort of relationship.
> However, I think this is showing up a more fundamental problem.
> If the community still has the same understanding of the general
> intent of the IPR and disclosure rules as it did when the WG
> concluded, then treating a document update that clarifies and/or
> better aligned with that general intent as an individual
> submission from Scott and Jorge.  If, however, we have
> significant disagreements about what the intent was, and maybe
> even about whether things have changed enough that the intent
> needs to be re-evaluated, then, at least IMO, it is unreasonable
> to expect that we can gets things right on the IETF list as part
> of a Last Call on an individual submission.  Instead, if we have
> reacted the point where a debate about principles is needed, it
> is almost certainly time to reconvene/ recharter the WG.
>      john