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

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 13 April 2016 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CB212E438 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:12:57 -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 0sFADJ9kqsLv for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED17C12E42D for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 184so38392556pff.0 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TGvg2QG/5ZmcdY4Kr0Vhw6Bt6rkxgKMhK0zFfvZ3GY4=; b=eYeYaMJ50cmKZt8OhIj0bdKI7s8jGZi7H27gd4YIxT6nn79bQzN9QV74AmXx/TvCbE jrVP6PD6U9+Ic8NAQd2a/WnY0b6IMt09l0MjGKOdjA1NvOO15AEc3K2XTlr9sDDMk0pF BygR5IRKGB5OOJ6ij7BQBrP+OzccsA0WeMZ90GgPte8oJnL+btH+TZ6gSIibQogZt26K InlQbxcfw47KnqAqcB8SbOIzI/0qUQx5O9lZO9uP0YBNZj41e9oerqe/MpCsq9YhRXDc U1i+HpSTE1Jsk/cL7ZDfidJUqSrWdc6sBzQOCrbu3nvaItHKJazDbcdpi5dL+ibn/iTp II/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TGvg2QG/5ZmcdY4Kr0Vhw6Bt6rkxgKMhK0zFfvZ3GY4=; b=mpJiJit/hz8pGk36NWDzCi5AxImRp5f8IZWJ5FPAg8gtroDLdTPlNo/lMefIod0B8d gth/nyly62tJ2AlVZp7326gHh3qPpLRg+vvUpzT07k4T8TE1rQxQCQolob2Y1hwIjNrv T/O+8XnMgVzGDWgUDsmx9e/fPk9u7YjFkgNEL7OZkuSQKvQPwv/EyubuwnUOGUC4aK5u uAXE6qHCBmjiaKawEgexKvcp9xqWt9US9U9eHFdBAC1mJoDa6e0YxvxNZWfzZOsWVoyn c4YKpRNlkqpXyS62qYeZ6o4zejehmBmxD3tSmzSPUnXiscsQEpSK/jPJJwHM5hEmCYrW Dt1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUA9h3NBK0wFDU6mGrMNSwvoNc/yMJc2lshgxAQbONFKot2HC1KCdB5lBrecDF2PQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 66mr15976754pfb.10.1460578375589; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5576:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5576:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id rw2sm53096645pab.30.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:12:54 -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: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:12:55 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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 20:12:57 -0000

On 14/04/2016 05:41, John C Klensin wrote:
> ... 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. 

Yes. Our aim, as I understand it, is to facilitate open discussion
and publication of open, interoperable standards, without damaging
the legitimate rights of IPR owners. That does not include allowing
IPR owners to disguise their IPR during the discussion, even by silence.
It also does not include forcing individuals to trigger onerous patent
searches, which is why our criterion has always been "reasonably and
personally known". This still seems like a reasonable compromise, and
I don't see the proposed updates as a fundamental change to the way ADs
and WG Chairs have always been expected to behave. We're just trying
to make it crystal clear.

As far as I know, the IETF isn't infected by people from non-practicing
entities, and all the major patent-writing companies have generally
played the game honestly. So I don't think we have a burning issue
here, just a desire to clarify the documents for future participants
and contributors.