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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 04 April 2016 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.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 A26EC12D586 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EOzHlV5nTTnm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x243.google.com (mail-ig0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C47612D576 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x243.google.com with SMTP id nt3so15652352igb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 06:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=O+2E1kwr4XzAB4UrlqT8ro8G4+nq47qZWwB9AM3ROv8=; b=eVWjOdzfewOryaMGE5EU+dlyqSB2typR9lf04oki0+RjM1cH4OOcu6kPSTd3UWiV1A iiszpKhtcBd2hnlPpm5zIzvqEtFSvc8uv31Xu4JyPDTrbOf7SxtWqOsZ+5zVvWq532aJ k92KfFQMcD5JTGuAiwrNraO8tR1so2QsVESn40PATBxmrm6U9FyOBeT7dggpAAcubTqV K5wBExnYq05nSOp2mudzSmxof6tPd+tnbXR/fdKTlKdn0AT7UCDdnNUj8zfK3bbCd/pu cOJkZP0Xb5kJ4rA9wKgbovbNTK3+er/zo4STKSE/HJ3dkjVlgde9qFJXsDYb5bR8JlPw wANw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=O+2E1kwr4XzAB4UrlqT8ro8G4+nq47qZWwB9AM3ROv8=; b=akIHhhHBybbtVgErJITHgselmxfaz/2Neyb84hs1KOAlb8ZodQ6ppxvQ3mHy/8JIRd t1h7gXTh2y82L7PDq8TUDtJ6IkJta1zoa1+8BhVxZkBn9nq2a+qy3m7VTp74Jd5MchMe ahgJtkpEs5wIzko8GOievrx4hRuVgBYhnnrYz6A82wTaR6bhzLhac9jP4KYV5r3JuFJv xNzQ5kpiJtsiP1aiwvtzr2fqEiWGeTHpP9iIDrJHWqc8qvqraLmNcxtXjRSufEB4tY7I jvIfJndxoORZNua4nxBsEWnByLSy9Pf/IQ4KBzxC0phm37PU46ohv3bOBal+u/AnILeU IJmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKDx6MgveiX+nYMj/Q1Vn0eCgvFfLCbnsXY/uPaAd8o/l8pVsj4MYmFLPNRu+17RhRirDXPHiomZwdlbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.92.70 with SMTP id ck6mr9961141igb.80.1459777401463; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 06:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.26.130 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56FC90E5.1050908@gmail.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <56FBF599.9080605@ericsson.com> <ACC702C9-C33F-4D38-B47A-8BC293D24621@sobco.com> <DCA1B6AC-6221-4CF5-A726-E1E98DBFAC27@vigilsec.com> <56FC90E5.1050908@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:43:21 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1nL_OsVsaGjEX2G4S2VtdP_LJJE
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVD3Pxm_vZgdCCgPgDwNfnYeKFJ5_Ys3QQPezrHzTGJE+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uXjhfxyxk2nV_KfbFJSvCTv_qDk>
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: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:43:32 -0000

>> So, one might argue that an AD can be unaware that a particular
>> document includes something that needs to be disclosed up to the
>> point that they take some action on that document, such as sponsoring it.
>
> Yes, but is that an issue? The AD is only required to disclose when
> she is "reasonably and personally aware" of the need for a disclosure,
> which will presumably become the case when she actually reads the draft
> (or sees the slides that describe the technology in question).

Be careful here: I think it is an issue.

The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the
participation.  If I'm participating in active discussion about
Section 4 of document X, and I should be reasonably and personally
aware of IPR my employer holds with respect to Section 3 of document
X, we aren't going to happily accept that I didn't read Section 3 so I
don't have a responsibility to disclose.

If we're saying that, say, ADs are considered to be Participants with
respect to every document and discussion in every working group in the
area -- and I see why some people think that's wise and appropriate --
then we're saying that I have a responsibility to disclose whether or
not I've read the documents, and waiting until AD Evaluation state
would be a late disclosure.  Consider that the working group might
have been proceeding for a couple of years and many I-D revisions
under the assumption that the technology is unencumbered... and then I
dump an IPR statement on them just as they've finished.

This really is a tough one: it would be nice if the late disclosure
didn't happen, but ADs can't reasonably be expected to read every
draft in every working group early on... and, as others have said, it
would be very bad if this disclosure requirement gave us even fewer AD
candidates than we have now.

Barry