Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 17 April 2018 20:52 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DBC126DCA for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 4nB8m3UY-CYH for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (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 7402A126DC2 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id h3so26483820wrh.5 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=81E8QKWuB3acXxxRO/0HVbouf7SqRT2mUuYHOG4oA1g=; b=svbI3f9KrbnfTWXojKThXDfsoqj/UGajBzQQr1Ym80kLD4mZwYvcToNHeDmsj52eme vhjmLvzEaDfU4shNZz/lOrChQkv7vH8w82cxbn7OO3wyG9qZFxXAAcQUxEj4o9hGcHbB Juscbv8Za+8useB0QG8ail6PP0q4mFV1EzVlbtbfOalcFP0Cs4KgximNH4Uo6C4KK8ds klfSzzOjLqotOKikwh6BeyAVrMWngaMD06EDhHbLbN+uq1Pk4CIXWAwGNZ7Xf/cdhNUC C4VF2Nv1d4FjXFXM7E3Rvn3oMX5OhaaTWObCsynM4pOE9BCNry3EMiC7XEJKcuUCJwYT dVIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=81E8QKWuB3acXxxRO/0HVbouf7SqRT2mUuYHOG4oA1g=; b=m/wBZVbw6uJE743557BPO2hPwU8eVLSgus4XvJZXihQeUPfJRiBDE/f+YSomX+L4OA M9kRbColSTSIA5YUeG5tpxOsUlgQtbRalKKiAbY3ML3qKCZl2HPycoDmJqlYlZW8J5Ga xnLkj+durM2XLkFmK1jQnRXQ0qSHqcRrPxWkdTgKYUUPfFZrCK7t6XG/KUZDf2YnV3Y9 ViB5KwBbMWlNCBY9dR+LP7ePpQXYExu/4SwticpJSYZdJwCUHfgbF/okWuAOLePK2CZN pMQsUHkhNdOTgWNjo4XBruMB5Zfj1R4kw+fQG3tAU6cci7ZztPsmkjWX3yG5YPTmdy4/ 3RQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAz4+lwUm7qUbXo8NLEHBGIoskCX/NaaH+tICnVHJqtQYhGjEh0 dajPv8EX2dT+b6yuOI7SaM7l3TLA0dFoXxL4zwZ1PtDw6nQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48fO0moahq8jcwDDpmmsUABmfqvzJm+VGdMgDwPFMCnmn4f4QSIVLiom70wDOLmb+dDi9xWThmG4aW3st9fr6w=
X-Received: by 10.28.139.18 with SMTP id n18mr2025737wmd.26.1523998337202; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.197.138 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <944d2973-6d1a-c6f7-aec7-79fd60eb4f6e@joelhalpern.com>
References: <6fc59353-a600-ebf8-d525-c4a026cb82bf@joelhalpern.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D63A00@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <944d2973-6d1a-c6f7-aec7-79fd60eb4f6e@joelhalpern.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:51:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+Ue31TnCZUBPyyMdjP9gC9aHMw-yp_pmrd5n+O1DyKug@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/86jejBF-qScN7w7LAl93261hRnc>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:52:22 -0000
Noting that I am not the responsible AD for this.... The IPR had been disclosed shortly after the call for adoption, and so the WG was "aware" of it when the WGLC occurred -- however, it is very easy to forget that there is IPR during the WGLC, which is why RFC7602 says (emphasis mine): "The chairs *might* also wish to include a reminder about the importance of IPR disclosures in any WGLC message communicated to the working group. (Note: If IPR disclosure statements have been filed, the chairs *might* wish to include a link in the WGLC message to ensure that the consensus call reflects this information.)" Section 6 of this also says: "WG chairs and ADs are not expected to enforce IPR disclosure rules, and this document does not suggest that they take on such a role.", however, RFC8179 says: "The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as early as possible in the development process. " and "5.4.2. Updating IPR Disclosures Those who disclose IPR should be aware that as Internet-Drafts evolve, text may be added or removed, and it is recommended that they keep this in mind when composing text for disclosures. A. Unless sufficient information to identify the issued patent was disclosed when the patent application was disclosed, an IPR disclosure must be updated or a new disclosure made promptly after any of the following has occurred: (1) the publication of a previously unpublished patent application, (2) the abandonment of a patent application, (3) the issuance of a patent on a previously disclosed patent application, or (4) a material change to the IETF Document covered by the Disclosure that causes the Disclosure to be covered by additional IPR. If the patent application was abandoned, then the new IPR disclosure must explicitly withdraw any earlier IPR disclosures based on the application. IPR disclosures against a particular Contribution are assumed to be inherited by revisions of the Contribution and by any RFCs that are published from the Contribution unless the disclosure has been updated or withdrawn." Again noting that I am not currently the responsible AD for the WG, I was when the WGLC occurred. So, I think that I'm within my rights to suggest that the chairs: 1: Suggest that the author who originally had the disclosure made (thank you, this was the right thing to do!) remind their lawyers of the requirement in RFC8179 Section 5.4.2 2: As you are raising concerns about whether everyone was aware (and state that at least one person wasn't) that the chairs ask if anyone who previously expressed support for progressing the document has changed their views **because** they were not aware of the existence of the IPR disclosure. before sending it to the IESG. Please please also keep in mind that: "(a) The IETF will make no determination about the validity of any particular IPR claim. (b) The IETF, following normal processes, can decide to use technology for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such a use is warranted." (and everything else in RFC8129, RFC2026, BCP79, etc). W On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > As far as I can tell, the formal IPR disclosure with IPR terms was not filed > until several days after that request. > Thus, the WG can not have considered it in the light of the actual terms. > > When I asked one WG participant, he was quite surprised by the terms. > > Given the difficulty both Huawei and Ericsson have gotten from IETF > participants over similar terms, I do not think this can be ignored. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 4/17/18 1:12 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: >> >> Hi Joel, >> >> Thanks for reminding this important information. >> Yes, we did the IPR poll when it became a WG draft. The IPR was disclosed >> then. Please see >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04792.html >> We did not received any objection based on this. >> >> Thanks, >> Tianran >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:25 AM >>> To: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org >>> Subject: regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call >>> >>> Is the working group aware of the IPR disclosure China Mobile made >>> against >>> this document? Specifically, that the IPR disclosure says that a license >>> may be required? >>> >>> Normally, I would not even comment on that, and as you can see, I am not >>> commenting on the list about it. >>> >>> But I note that this is a case where there is a clear workaround (just >>> don't >>> do this). So I would expect that the shepherd report, whenever that is >>> produced, will need to discuss the IPR disclosure. >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
- Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bg… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bg… Warren Kumari
- Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bg… Tianran Zhou