Re: [Rats] Next steps on draft-ietf-rats-architecture IPR discussion

[Jeremy O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman, Henk,

Let me try to state things more clearly.

I generally think the RATS arch document is useful, and in the absence of IPR claims I would support publication.

I am not in a position to make any assessment as to whether the IPR claims would cause me to assess that the document should not be published in its current form. You could call this something like “-0.5” if you like.

I would prefer to see the document modified so that it is non-infringing, and would strongly support this.

Best regards
Jeremy

On 13/12/2021, 11:29, "RATS" <[e-mail]> wrote:

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

Hi Roman,

thank you for your summary and pushing this forward! That is really
appreciated.

To be precise, if I filter the subject "IPR statements about
draft-ietf-rats-architecture", I count five non-editor/non-chair +1
votes in support of moving forward, namely (I hope it is okay to point
out names and emails in a summary, explicitly. It feels useful, but also
weird. I apologize beforehand): Eric, Ira, Thomas H., Guy, and Daniel.

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/xihv0yHc9hyc7-32sP4J-NJs_HY
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/uyRm8z6Rzy0YHz8lLNtTbdtBOoI
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/37EFdkip0px3tG5OasYRpQvZaUU
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/bTmHgryO9XXmapTLOTCWqBx3Lm0
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/JrHQgIlSQR7ihMup3K6BiTYXgIU

I also feel the need to re-iterate MCR's sentiment that most IETF
members's company policy *does not allow IETF participants to read
patents*. What I can add to the statements that it was also highlithed
on the list that the IPR Claims are already public (for a while, actually).

And even against these policy odds, we have five non-editor votes in
support of publication and two editor's votes in support.

I am not entirely sure what to unpack from MCR's and Jeremy's replies to
this thread right now. I agree with basically all arguments in these
replies. But that does not really help the process, effectively ;-)

Are these replies "+1 for publication"? Because I cannot really tell.


Viele Grüße,

Henk



On 08.12.21 18:36, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The cognizant co-chairs and I have been coordinating on how to handle draft-ieft-rats-architecture [1].
>
> This document [1] is through WG Last Call but emerging IPR claims [6] [7] necessitated a WG discussion on how to proceed.  When such claims emerge, it is common practice to explicitly consult the WG on next steps with the document (but not evaluating the merits of the IPR). This consultation was explained during IETF 112 and ran in November [2].  Unfortunately, the results were inconclusive due to almost no feedback being provided.
>
> Specifically, only three parties responded on next steps [3] [4] [5] and among the respondents was a document author [3].  [4] suggested the WG wait for the full patent details (which are not public) in the case of one IPR claim.  [5] indicated support for proceeding with publication as planned.  To repeat, this level of feedback is insufficient consensus on any direct.
>
> If we are to reach resolution on this issue, WG feedback is needed.  As such, WG consultation on the IPR is being re-opened till December 20, 2021.  Please respond to the thread [2].  Consider the existing IPR feedback discussion to date - are you comfortable proceeding to publication with the IPR information that exists? do you need to wait for full details on the IPR claims? are you outright uncomfortable with publication given the IPR information that is published? any other position?
>
> To make best use of the time while we continue to discuss the issue:
>
> ** The WG can resolve the early AD review comments [8] shared on November 12.  The next step in the document review process is an AD review where these would be a subset of blocking feedback before IETF LC.
>
> ** In response to a request by the document authors, early review by the SECDIR and IOTDIR will also be requested by the chairs.  The WG should keep in mind that this is an "early review".  As is standard practice, another re-review(s) will be triggered in advance of IETF LC and IESG telechat.
>
> Regards,
> Roman, Nancy and Kathleen
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-architecture/
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/6FKaaDLry7_PexyhI5jySAOZ3cE/
> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/GrDPAPgYWMgmUJUJu3_GBzC2FSQ/
> [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/lMudsv_xOzBWP_AXvT47P7bz-Dw/
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>

_______________________________________________
RATS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats