Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-10.txt
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 31 July 2003 17:33 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05340 for <ipr-wg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:33:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iHIU-0004Q4-UH for ipr-wg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:33:02 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6VHX2GR016981 for ipr-wg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:33:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iHIU-0004Po-Qa for ipr-wg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:33:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05308 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:32:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iHIS-0005v3-00 for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:33:00 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iHIR-0005v0-00 for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:32:59 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iHIS-0004NS-Td; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:33:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iHHv-0004Mg-Dr for ipr-wg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:32:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05281 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iHHt-0005uf-00 for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:32:25 -0400
Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19iHHs-0005uZ-00 for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:32:24 -0400
Received: from northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (northrelay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.206]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h6VHVsKb088876 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:31:54 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with ESMTP id h6VHVrYE109382 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:31:53 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h6VHTw6l002217 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:29:58 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h6VHTw2A002212 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:29:58 -0400
Message-Id: <200307311729.h6VHTw2A002212@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-10.txt
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:29:58 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Sender: ipr-wg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipr-wg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
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>
substantative (maybe): > i. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts except for Internet- > Drafts that are RFC Editor Contributions and the RFCs that are > published from them. Note: We currently have no way of looking at an RFC and knowing whether it is the result of an IETF activity or not. But the current set of documents makes it clear that IPR disclosures apply to "IETF documents". It is less clear they apply to "RFC Editor Contributions". I.e., RFC Editor Contributions must first be submitted as IDs (at which point IPR must be disclosed), but once the RFC is published, there appears to be no such requirement anymore. Seems like this leaves things underspecified. Two practical points: 1) Is someone who gets an RFC published via the RFC Editor Contribution route obligated to update the IETF (or anyone) about IPR once their document is a published RFC? (AFAIK, this is not clearly specified). 2) If known IPR is not required to be disclosed for RFCs in category 1, but is for IETF-produced RFCs, it seems like we may need a way to identify which RFCs are IETF documents and which are not. How is this intended to be done? (E.g., maybe all future IETF RFCs should have a line along the lines "this document was produced by the IETF Foo Bar WG".) new point: In the definitions section, it might be good to define the term "implementor" more formally, as the term is used in ipr-template and I'm not sure *exactly* what it means. I.e., isn't the disributor of software (who may not be the implementor) also subject to some issues with regards to technology that has IPR associated with it? Here is the one comment I had in reviewing draft-ietf-ipr-template-05.txt > a) ___ No License Required for Implementers What is a definition of an implementor? is a separate distinction needed for a product that gets sold and shipped? I.e., it might be good to define implementor to also include "user", since it is not just implementors that are subject to IPR. (back to draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-10.txt) > (D) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed as > provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF Executive > Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR, a written > assurance that upon approval by the IESG for publication as RFCs > of the relevant IETF specification(s), all persons will be able to > obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other > rights with respect to Implementing Technology under one of the > licensing options specified in Section 6.5 below unless such a > statement has already been submitted. The working group proposing > the use of the technology with respect to which the Intellectual > Property Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF Executive > Director in this effort. Note: the above seems to apply only to IETF contributions the way it is written. I guess RFC editor contributions are funny. But, if the submitter said there was IPR, is the secretariat supposed to do the normal IPR query? Or is it explicitely not supposed to? > 5. Notice to be included in RFCs > > The RFC Editor will ensure that the following notice is present in > all standards track RFCs and all other RFCs for which an IPR > disclosure has been received. Seems the above should apply not just to standards track, but to all "IETF Contributions". Saying "standards track" above seems inconsistent with other parts of this document. To be clear, is the above wording intended to say the "disclaimer' is not needed for IETF-produced info and experimental documents? I don't understand why we would want to exclude those. > If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF > Contributions, and such IPR does not meet the conditions of Section > 6.6 as to such person, such person is encouraged to notify the IETF > by sending an email message to ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Such a notice > should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person > realizes the connection. Don't understand what this is trying to say. Is this saying that if I know about (relevant) IPR, but I'm not the IPR holder (maybe I work for some other company), I do not have to disclose existance? The above to me reads like there is IPR, someone knows about it, but they don't have to disclose. Maybe my confusion stems from the "and such IPR does not meet the conditions..." Its not just a question of the IPR meeting the condition, it's whether the person who knows of the IPR is a participant. Is the above trying to encourage non-participants to disclose things they know about? > 6.1.1 A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution > Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting > the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers > or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the > Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or > sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such > Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section > 6. does this include IPR for which there are internal discussions as to whether to file, but no determination has yet been made? (I ask only because this question comes up fairly often in practice. It might be good to have explicit wording about that.) > 6.2.1 Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.1 > The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as > soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an > Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file. > For example, if the Contribution is an update to a Contribution for > which an IPR disclosure has already been made and the applicability > of the disclosure is not changed by the new Contribution, then no new > disclosure is required. But if the Contribution is a new one, or is > one that changes an existing Contribution such that the revised > Contribution is no longer Covered by the disclosed IPR or would be > Covered by new or different IPR, then a disclosure must be made. > > Participants who realize that a Contribution will be or has been > incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft, > or is seriously being discussed in a working group are strongly > encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure. That > disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as > reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually > posted or ready for posting. I read the above as saying someone who has knowledge that there is IPR associated with X, can argue to the WG that they should use X without disclosing the existance of IPR at the time they are arguing for inclusion of the IPR. They only disclose if the technology gets adopted. This would seem to violate the spirit of our rules, and I'd like to be sure that wording matches the WG's intention. The above clearly says one "should" make a "preliminary disclosure", but "should" implies that there are times when it is reasonable not to. Do people have examples in mind here that resulted in "should" vs. "must"? The above seems to be to conflict with the basic theme that if one knows of IPR, and is making a Contribution, one is obligated to disclose. And the above seems to significantly narrow the scope of what one must disclose compared to 1.c. It is specifically the first sentence quoted above that I have difficulty with. What is a "preliminary disclosure". Shouldn't we define the term to make a bit more clear what is meant? > version number. In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple > parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF > Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is > helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document > that are alleged to be so Covered. Note: this basically means that for large complicated documents, IPR can be asserted for which the WG has no clue what part it covers. This is problematical in practice. The wording "it is helpful if the discloser identifies the sections" is fairly weak. (I understand that we can't require identification to the degree of describing what the IPR is, but the above wording allows an IPR holder to say nothing, and be compliant. This can be problematic in practice.) Is this wording the best the WG could do? Section 6.4.2. should there be rules requiring (or suggesting?) that the IESG to poll for updates? E.g., every N months? or, prior to starting a document action Last Call? Note, I'm not sure about whether this shoudl be formallized. I.e,. it might best be done via IESG procedure, but not be required. The goal is to get the IPR info updated a bit more often than it is now... > of a patent thereon. If the patent has issued, then the new > disclosure must include the patent number and, if the claims of the > granted patent differ from those of the application in manner > material to the relevant IETF Contribution, it is helpful if such a > disclosure describes any differences in applicability to the IETF > Contribution. If the patent application was abandoned, then the new > disclosure must explicitly withdraw any earlier disclosures based on > the application. One can read the above as saying that if a patent is granted, but what is covered is different from what was said to have been covered in a previous disclosure, there is no obligation to clarify. The "it is helpful" wording is not all that strong. Note: I would assume that a new/updated disclosure would replace the previous one and should stand on its own, so I'm not sure if any special words are really needed. Perhaps some wording along the lines of the following would help: The new disclosure will be considered to replace and obsolete any previous disclosure and must be consistent with all of the disclosure rules described in this document. > 6.4.3 The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the > submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every > Contribution. This is the case because the aim of the disclosure > requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against > specific technology under discussion in the IETF. The requirement is > also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness to license > all potential IPR under fair and non-discriminatory terms for the > same reason. However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is > satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness > to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of > Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an > IETF specification on a royalty-free basis and other reasonable and > non- discriminatory terms. The text after the "however" struck be as odd when I first read it. I assume the last sentence is intended to mean, if one is willing to license royalty-free, a blanket statement to that effect is sufficient and that such an IPR holder is no longer under any obligation to disclose which technology any IPR applies to. Is this the correct intent? Nits: in regards to IETF Internet- Drafts as specified in this document s/Internet- Drafts/Internet-Drafts/ > n. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright, > utility, model, invention registration, database and data rights > that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights > arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application > therefore, in each case anywhere in the world. Not really sure what this text means, especially the "database and data rights" stuff. Where does this come from? Move paragraph n. to after p. since n. uses terms defined immediately thereafter... > (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have > the information needed to make an informed decision about the use > of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working > group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the > Contributor believes Covers or may ultimately Cover the technology > under discussion. This applies to both contributors and other > participants, and applies whether they contribute in person, via > email or by other means. The requirement applies to all IPR of > the Contributor, the Contributor's employer, sponsor, or others > represented by the Contributors, that is reasonably and personally > known to the person submitting the disclosure. No patent search > is required. above, "Contributor" is used, but that term includes "RFC Contributions", which I believe is not appropriate here. Or is it? Also, what is a "other participant", since in the note well, participants basically make contributions. So aren't they all just contributors? What is the definition of a participant? If participant is different than contributor, it might be good to explain why. Or just us the term "Contributor" exclusively. > require that the document includes a note indicating the existence s/includes/include/ > (A) When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before > publication as a RFC, with respect to any technology, > specification, or standard described in an IETF Document in the > manner set forth in Section 6 of this document, the IESG shall The text: "... with respect to any technology, specification, or standard described in an.. " Is slightly different in (A), (B), and (C). Is this significant? It would seem to me to be better if the same words were used for consistency. (I'm not sure which wording is best, or intended...) > (B) When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before > publication as a RFC, with respect to any technology, > specification described in an RFC Editor Document in the manner s/any technology, specification/any technology or specification/ (this text seems to be an editted version of the previous paragraph and could flow better. s/RFC Editor Document/RFC Editor Contribution/ > Draft Standard have been produced by different organizations or > individuals, or if the "significant implementation and successful > operational experience" required to advance from Draft Standard to Would be good to include a reference to the document and section where the above text is quoted? > Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any > assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an > attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use > of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this > specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository > at http://www.ietf.org/ipr/. I note the use of the word "or user" above. This word doesn't appear in ipr-template, and I wonder if it should. (This comment also relates to the one about whether we might want to define "implementor" better, and maybe have that term include "user"). > 6.3 How must a disclosure be made? > IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at > http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions. Might be better to just use one URL in this document for all references to the IPR page, e.g., http://www.ietf.org/ipr > specific IETF or RFC Editor Documents or activity affected. If the s/Documents/Document(s)/ > 6.4.2 If a disclosure was made on the basis of a patent application > (either published or unpublished), then, if requested to do so by the > IESG or by a working group chair, the IETF Executive Director can > request a new disclosure indicating whether any of the following has > occurred: the publication of a previously unpublished patent > application, the abandonment of the application and/or the issuance s/abandonment/abandonment or rejection/ > 6.6 When is a disclosure required? > IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with > respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the > individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such > persons otherwise have the right to license or assert. This section, especially coming at the end of section 6, doesn't seem to contain any information not covered elsewhere in a lot more detail. Perhaps delete? > of patent applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required > for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions, Better to say "is required for anyone making an IETF Contribution..."? > 9. Change control for technologies > > The IETF must have change control over the technology described in > any standards track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may > be discovered or to produce other derivative works. Contributions to Change control of the technologies, or over the documentation of such technologies? I assume the latter. If so, the wording might be made more precise Also, here again we have "standards track documents" rather than just all IETF documents (I assume the latter is meant). > Note that an standards track IETF Document can make normative > reference to proprietary technology in some cases, for example, when > making parameter assignments or encapsulations (e.g., "parameter > value 1234 refers to proprietary technology A" or "proprietary > technology B can be encapsulated using the techniques described in > RFC XYZ.") While I don't necessarily disagree with the words, this text seems somewhat out of place in this document. I.e, this seems to be a change to the "normative" language of 2026. Is it? Is this the right place to do so? Thomas _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
- Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-10.t… Thomas Narten
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-… Scott Bradner
- normative reference text (was: Re: Comments on dr… Thomas Narten
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Scott Bradner
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Thomas Narten
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Scott W Brim
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Thomas Narten
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Scott Bradner
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… John C Klensin
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Scott W Brim
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Scott Bradner
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… John C Klensin
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… John C Klensin
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Scott W Brim
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… C. M. Heard
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Thomas Narten
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Thomas Narten
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… John C Klensin
- Re: normative reference text (was: Re: Comments o… Scott Bradner