Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call

Thanks Warren very much for the suggestions from the AD side.
Base on AD suggestions, I with the WG Chair role, would like to:
1. Let the authors to discuss the relation between the IPR and the draft, and get wider WG awareness. 
2. Base on the above, see if the authors need to update the IPR disclosure.
3. Ask the consensus again before sending to IESG.

Thanks,
Tianran 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 4:52 AM
> To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> Cc: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR
> call
> 
> 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