Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Job Snijders [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:35 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Stephen Farrell
> Cc: [e-mail]; Livesay, Paul; draft-ietf-eppext-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?
> 
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 07:40:19PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > (Removing the IETF list)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Job Snijders [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Subject: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?
> > >
> > >     """Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a
> > >     willingness to commit to the provisions of a), b), or c) above
> > >     to all implementers; otherwise, the next option 'Unwilling to
> > >     Commit to the Provisions of a), b), or c) Above'. - must be
> > >     selected)"""
> > >
> > > The IPR statement was submitted on July 21, 2014.  I am not sure
> what
> > > the capitalisation of the words "Provided Later" signifies - but
> surely
> > > the purpose of this process is not to stall and leave a document in
> > > limbo forever.
> > >
> > > A promise such as "soon" is appreciated, but not sufficient:
> > >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/SbwMA57ebzMjKwaphz6AZzliMM
> >
> > This is the latest information I (I am the IETF participant whose
> > belief triggered the disclosure) have as of right now: the patent has
> > not been issued, and so Verisign does not know which, if any, claims
> > will be allowed. The disclosure will be updated when the application
> > process has been completed by the patent office.
> 
> Dear Scott,
> 
> There can be any number of years between filing and issuance, there is
> no assurance that USPTO will be able to progress the application in the
> immediate or distant future.
> 
> How does the Internet community benefit from not having a standardized
> way to securely transfer domainnames?
> 
> I have to ask: is VeriSign purposefully obstructing the publication of
> the draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay document?

No, not at all. Document publication was held up by a single IESG evaluation discussion point that could have been cleared *at any time* if members of the WG responded to the two points raised by Stephen. It might help to read Stephen's ballot position (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay/ballot/). Point 1:

"Note: If I am explicitly told that this was considered and participants were ok with the declaration even as-is, then I'll clear."

This never happened. Point 2:

"I think you need to be clear about which of these cases is actually being supported and about the overall sequence of events needed. (If you tell me that you really want to do whatever is in draft-koch, then that's fine but then this draft is probably premature and draft-koch would need to be a normative ref.)"

This never happened, either. Failure to address these two points is what held up the document, not the disclosure that I as an IETF participant was required to make.

> Because Verisign still has the option to provide a more detailed
> Licensing Declaration ahead of the issuance, covering whatever claims
> (if any) will be allowed.
> 
> Why has Versign choosen not to provide a Licensing Declaration such as
> option A ('no license'), B ('Free RAND'), C ('RAND') or E ('NOPE')?
> 
> In failing to provide clarity to the internet engineering community,
> Verisign is arguably obstructing much needed internet security
> mechanisms.

In my last note I explained why the decision was made to not update the disclosure: we do not know if the patent will be granted, and we do not know which, if any, of the claims will be allowed. We cannot provide a definitive licensing declaration for something that remains unknown.

Scott