Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure (Improving TCP'sRobustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to Proposed Standard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: "Fernando Gont" <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: <tcpm@ietf.org>; "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>;
<ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure (Improving
TCP'sRobustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to Proposed Standard

> On 2009-04-17 17:14, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)
> > <ananth@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> * The document never mentions the fact that this document is
> >>> IPR-encumbered.
> ...
> > I personally believe this should be noted in all RFCs on which there's
> > a known IPR. However, Joel Halpern mentioned this is not current
> > practice. If that's the case, I'd have no problem with leaving it "as
> > is". (FWIW, if you look at our tcp-security document, we do recommend
> > the implementation of the counter-measures you propose, but just note
> > that there's an IPR, and that implementers should research how this
> > would affect them).
>
> Personal belief doesn't come into it. It's strictly defined in a BCP.
> RFC3979 tells us the rules about this. Basically, the RFC Editor will
> do what is required:
>
> "4.  Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received
>
>    (A) When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before
>        publication as an  RFC, with respect to any technology or
>        specification, described in a Contribution in the manner set
>        forth in Section 6 of this document, the RFC Editor shall ensure
>        that the document include a note indicating the existence of such
>        claimed Intellectual Property Rights in any RFC published from
>        the Contribution.  (See Section 5 below.)"
>
> [Section 5 defines the exact text to be included in such RFCs.
> I believe you can use <?rfc iprnotified="yes"?> in xml2rfc.]

This is what I thought but ....

RFC5425 has recently been published and I can find no mention of IPR claims in
it.  The IESG Protocol Action
Message-Id: <20081008150846.3A3B03A6BDE@core3.amsl.com>
calls out the fact that claims were made, in fact repeatedly so, against each
successive version of the I-D.  So why nothing in the RFC?  What am I missing?

Tom Petch

> "11.  No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents
>
>    IETF and RFC Editor Documents must not contain any mention of
>    specific IPR.  All specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as
>    described in Section 6.  Specific IPR disclosures must not be in the
>    affected IETF and RFC Editor Documents because the reader could be
>    misled.  The inclusion of a particular IPR disclosure in a document
>    could be interpreted to mean that the IETF, IESG, or RFC Editor has
>    formed an opinion on the validity, enforceability, or applicability
>    of the IPR.  The reader could also be misled to think that the
>    included IPR disclosures are the only IPR disclosures the IETF has
>    received concerning the IETF document.  Readers should always refer
>    to the on-line web page to get a full list of IPR disclosures
>    received by the IETF concerning any Contribution.
>    (http://www.ietf.org/ipr/)"
>
>       Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf