Re: Handling IPR disclosures through draft reorganizations

Jay,

Are you aware that the IPR disclosure page apparently does not enforce the very precise rule in BCP 79 that I-Ds cited in disclosures must be referenced by specific version number?

This seems to be a 9-year-old bug, with consequences as described in Carsten's original message at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/Vr13La4lbl5Ck61ISlPC20V1Hmo .

Regards
     Brian Carpenter

On 20-Jun-23 09:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I believe that Carsten has uncovered a very serious situation.
> 
> On 19-Jun-23 19:50, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> In July 2021, the CoRE WG split the draft-ietf-core-dynlink into two parts, draft-ietf-core-dynlink proper (about dynamic link bindings), and the separately progressed draft-ietf-core-conditional-attributes.
>> It has been slow going, but we now have mostly completed work on the latter, and would like to take up finishing the former.
>>
>> One situation that is a bit weird after the split is that the original dynlink (that was including both what is now dynlink and a previous version of the conditional attributes specification) came out of an individual draft that has IPR disclosures on it:
> 
> Up to and including IPR disclosure #2508 on 2014-12-19, disclosures against I-Ds specified the draft version number. For reasons that I have forgotten, if I ever knew them, disclosures since then have not specified the version number. That change creates the breakage that you describe, and I believe it's a *serious* bug - disclosures must be against a specific version number rather than against unspecified past and future versions of the draft.
> 
> RFC 3668 (applicable from February 2004) and RFC 4879 (applicable from March 2005) were rather precise:
> 
> "The disclosure must also list the specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected.  If the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific version number."
> 
> RFC 8179 (applicable since May 2017) is equally precise:
> 
> "An IPR disclosure must include ... (c) the specific IETF Document(s) or activity affected, and (d) if the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, its specific version number."
> 
> I really hate to say this, but it seems to me that all IPR disclosures against I-Ds since 2014-12-27 do not conform to RFC 4879 or RFC 8179. Indeed, RFC 8179 confirms that the change made in late 2014 was a serious error.
> 
> If the disclosure that Carsten refers to had been correct, i.e. specified the version number as required, his problem would not exactly go away, but it would be tractable.
> 
> Does anyone here know why we started to break our own rule in December 2014?
> 
> How can we fix the ~3500 broken IPR disclosures since then? Presumably, we must deem them to apply to the draft version that was current at the date of the disclosure.
> 
>       Brian
> 
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-core-dynlink
>>
>> IANAL, but it very much seems the disclosure might be related to the part of the specification that went into conditional-attributes.
>> So, after the split, these disclosures are now associated in our database with the wrong draft.
>>
>> The then holder of the patent claims in the disclosures apparently has since decided to abandon those claims.  It does not seem easy to obtain a formal statement from them to that effect (the abandonment, however, appears to be easy to ascertain from the patent databases; IANAL though); after all, there no longer is any patent claim that needs to be disclosed.
>>
>> So it seems I have two questions:
>>
>> (1) How do we handle IPR disclosures that stick to the wrong draft after a reorganization like the split we did?
>>
>> (2) How do we handle the absence of negative IPR disclosures?
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>>
>> (This could also be discussed in the more general context of updating IPR disclosures, e.g., <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/IHlcUZmeyanJ1f_hXKqu9yvSy_8>.)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg