Re: [v6ops] IPR Disclosure Apple Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/2017 20:41, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Erik Kline wrote:
>>> I see this was submitted on "October 5, 2017".  I suppose now is the
>>> chance for the working group to evaluate what this means and perhaps
>>> reconsider this document's status?
>>
>> does the ietf have a position on ipr licensing terms with retaliatory
>> clauses?  If so, this is less of a wg issue and more of an ietf issue.
>
> IANAL, but this disclosure seems to be a pretty standard one with both
> RAND and reciprocity clauses. In other words it doesn't stop anybody
> from implementing the RFC unless the implementer goes after the patent
> holder over something else. In the world we live in, that's as good
> as we can hope for.

IANALNDISIAHELN (I Am Not A Lawyer, Nor Did I Stay In A Holiday
Express Last Night)

Yup, this seems to be a fairly common licensing method, and seems to
be (see above disclaimer) much less restrictive than many.

>
> And no, it isn't an IETF issue. It's the WG's job to decide whether
> an IPR disclosure is a problem: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-7
>

And, just so the WG has some history / background (as far as I can remember it):

Around WGLC the authors stated that they did not know of any IPR which
needed to be disclosed, but then (during IETF LC) became aware of the
fact that there *might* be. They needed some time to investigate /
talk to their legal people, and let the chairs know, who let me know.

I replied to the IETF LC announcement to let the IETF and WG know that
there might be an IPR disclosure forthcoming:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dmfCf7eLvtxSF30osuvmjNzGW38
(IETF list), https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bEF7VI-COO7FfYtxBjTALuDtgu0
(v6ops list).
(we also updated the shepherd writeup)

Over the next ~19 days the authors worked with their legal folk, and
the IPR disclosure was posted on Oct 5th.

W

>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

-- 
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