Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com> Thu, 07 June 2007 15:30 UTC

Return-path: <ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwJwY-0004B8-J6; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:30:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwJwX-0004B2-6O for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:30:33 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwJwU-0008Fg-Re for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:30:33 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2007 08:30:01 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,395,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="160529506:sNHT136865016"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l57FU0db031903; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:30:00 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l57FTtaY026314; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:30:00 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:30 -0400
Received: from [10.86.242.178] ([10.86.242.178]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:30 -0400
Message-ID: <4668242B.8070309@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:28:43 -0400
From: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@connotech.com>
References: <46656415.7090505@connotech.com>
In-Reply-To: <46656415.7090505@connotech.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2007 15:29:30.0181 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4290750:01C7A918]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2019; t=1181230200; x=1182094200; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sbrim@cisco.com; z=From:=20Scott=20W=20Brim=20<sbrim@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Effective=20vs=20intended=20handling=20of=20patent=20 encumbrance=20in=20IETF=0A=20wg=20and=20IESG |Sender:=20; bh=R9QO7Fz6zvSswSwHEHUGajsyc4LVQ3SSXl8D2ZBZkQ8=; b=ZfSJpjB8xN4GOMU1tAzfDfLZMZ3EwmdUlF2NOuw57/dG5BfJBg419IdZjsGJtPOv8TGuSjvg rt78JgHT/Ie9bou5mQCA09ailnsnn5QdyMSDpytWg8x5OMMxqyJqyisU;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sbrim@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org

If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Working Group should
take technical issues into account just as much as it takes IPR
encumbrance into account.  Is that right?

swb

On 06/05/2007 09:24 AM, Thierry Moreau allegedly wrote:
> For your information:
> 
> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made
> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered
> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management.
> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it
> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
> 
> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it
> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict
> IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
> 
> Conversely, it reinforces the economic incentive for medium and large
> organizations to isolate the individuals participating in the IETF
> activities from the patent application management process.
> 
> Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the
> problem area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit
> security model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong
> preference for "ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR")
> when a tradeoff has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope
> and field of application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as
> innovation enhances the networking technology.
> 
> Please note that I am not well aware of the detailed procedural and
> institutional arrangements that implement RFC3979, before the appeal
> process can correct deviations. While I was participating in the above
> matter, I chose not to rely on the appeal process, perhaps because it
> wasn't clear to me how things should have gone in the first place.
> 
> P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF ipr wg charter;
> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
> 
> Regards,
> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg