Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Michael Dillon wrote: Therefore, why not proactively consult the FSF on any standards track document that makes use of patented material? Proactively drive the dialogue by getting the FSF involved at an early stage, and by providing a separate mailing list (ietf-comments) for discussing the IPR issues. Over time, the FSF folks will better understand how the IETF deals with IPR and will see that there is rarely the possibility of a serious problem. This is unlikely to result in a workable compromise, since the FSF has a fundamental belief that software patents are never acceptable, and the IETF has taken the position that in certain situations they are acceptable. This is the sort of roadblock faced by international diplomats trying to negotiate peaceful coexistence between two nations, one of whom has a fundamental belief that the other has no right to exist. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: > Ted Ts'o wrote: > > So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and > > assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise > > to the reader" care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* > > it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, > > and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? > > I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process > documents from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. > I thought John and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort > of like Windows might provide a model for a Linux open source > program, without the actual code being yet written. :-) > > Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a > draft, although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process > bigots want to comment on that flaw tonight too? > > I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group > (PSIG) charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of > the W3C Patent Policy > (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be > models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific > document sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or > royalty-free or any other of the political patent battles that divide > us. They are merely open process descriptions, just like a draft here > ought to be. > I think it's a fair start, though I note that 7.5.3 carries with it a fairly strong bias towards royalty-free terms. But let me translate. Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had intended), you're suggesting (translated IETF terms) that when a WG encounters a patent thought to be related, a group will be formed consisting of the AD, the WG chair(s) ex officio, representatives of the WG (presumably designated by the chair(s)), perhaps an IAB liason -- and the IETF patent counsel. What is the analog to "representatives of each member organization"? Volunteers not from the WG? Selected by whom? The usual IETF practice would be appointment by the AD and/or the IAB, I suspect. What would the possible alternatives be? The W3C version has a strong bias towards royalty-free, since that's W3C's overarching policy. The IETF's policy is different, and the board's charge would have to be different. Really, with the exception that it needs legal input, such a group would actually be a design team that is supposed to look at the tradeoffs (per our policies) and make a recommendation to the WG. Anyway -- I think this is a promising suggestion, and not inconsistent with IETF practice or policy. But a fully-fleshed out I-D -- one that addresses the membership and the alternatives -- is probably needed, if only as a matter of form. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
At 11:44 AM -0800 2/18/09, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > Really, with the exception that it needs legal input, such >a group would actually be a design team that is supposed to look at the >tradeoffs (per our policies) and make a recommendation to the WG. Under that theory, I note that the IESG Design Team document would appear to apply (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Design-Teams.txt). For those hard of linking, here's text that is particularly important from my perspective: The key point here is that the output of a design team is input to a working group, not a final document. Such a document must not be considered as more important than any other input to the working group. Anyone can write an alternative proposal and ask the working group to consider it. The decision on which document to work further on must be made by the consensus of the working group. If design teams work as intended, their output will be of a quality that speaks for itself. Working group chairs should note that there is a potential of anti-trust liability if a design team is formed with a restricted membership and then the output is given priority over other input to the process. Unless the IETF is going to provide counsel to all other efforts, there is a very real risk that the output of such a design team will be given weight greater than that of other groups or individuals. That wouldn't work, as noted above, as it means the restricted membership might end up with a near-automatic right to make the decision. I continue to believe that having the *whole* affected working group make these decisions is the most effective and transparent way to get the work done. That way it gets the benefit of all the perspectives (be it that of the FSF, some WG participants' patent counsels, or the real-life risk assessment of the developers involved). It is already possible to request the AD to get input from the IETF's patent counsel, which is delivered to the IETF as a whole. That costs money, of course, and we don't do it for every document as a matter of course. But delivering that advice through this body doesn't seem to add much to me. Only my opinion, of course, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
At 2:44 PM -0500 2/18/09, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had >intended), you're suggesting (translated IETF terms) that when a WG >encounters a patent thought to be related, a group will be formed >consisting of the AD, the WG chair(s) ex officio, representatives of >the WG (presumably designated by the chair(s)), perhaps an IAB liason >-- and the IETF patent counsel. I think you are putting words in Larry's mouth. In has past few messages, he has indeed talked about what sounded like a standing board, one that sounded like it would deal with issues from all WGs. Larry, since you refuse to write a draft (and like to insult people who say that one is needed), can you at least say whether Steve or I are closer to your proposal? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Steven, thanks very much for your email. My comments are below. /Larry > -Original Message- > From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:s...@cs.columbia.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:45 AM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800 > "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: > > > Ted Ts'o wrote: > > > So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and > > > assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise > > > to the reader" care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* > > > it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, > > > and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? > > > > I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process > > documents from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. > > I thought John and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort > > of like Windows might provide a model for a Linux open source > > program, without the actual code being yet written. :-) > > > > Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a > > draft, although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process > > bigots want to comment on that flaw tonight too? > > > > I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group > > (PSIG) charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of > > the W3C Patent Policy > > (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be > > models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific > > document sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or > > royalty-free or any other of the political patent battles that divide > > us. They are merely open process descriptions, just like a draft here > > ought to be. > > > > I think it's a fair start, though I note that 7.5.3 carries with it a > fairly strong bias towards royalty-free terms. But let me translate. [LR:] I share that bias, but that's an IETF battle for another day. For now, I'm glad that you think of this as "a fair start". > Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had > intended), [LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have to agitate and recruit an expert team over every question, when a simple question referred to an IPR Advisory Board for an answer will probably suffice? But like most of your points in this paragraph, it's open for discussion > you're suggesting (translated IETF terms) that when a WG > encounters a patent thought to be related, a group will be formed [LR:] Or already exists > consisting of the AD, the WG chair(s) ex officio, representatives of > the WG (presumably designated by the chair(s)), perhaps an IAB liason [LR:] No comment. Up to you. > -- and the IETF patent counsel. [LR:] Be very careful. No attorney who can be deemed to speak on behalf of IETF regarding patents should be there opining IETF's opinion about actual patents. Instead, I recommend that we have an invited (and probably open) selection of other attorneys who are willing to sign up and actually participate as individuals, not representing specific clients and speaking with appropriate liability caveats. For process purposes, however, the IPR Advisory Board can probably be chaired by an IETF patent counsel just to make sure everyone behaves We'll have to see how many brave attorneys are actually willing to participate in the entire IETF community's behalf, but if W3C is an example, we'll find lots of willing attorneys. :-) > What is the analog to "representatives > of each member organization"? Volunteers not from the WG? Selected by > whom? The usual IETF practice would be appointment by the AD and/or > the IAB, I suspect. [LR:] ...And even some non-attorneys; I'm not prejudiced In light of IETF's openness, anyone who is willing to sign up and actually participate, although I think most engineers will find the mailing list itself boring. Mostly it would consist of people reading the technology proposals, reading the patent disclosures, and opining about whether they match up. No guarantees or warranties. Just experts cooperating to advise non-experts so we can get IETF work done. Let's keep those discussions off the WG lists (where they distract everyone unnecessarily) and onto a single IPR Advisory Board (with people who actually like reading patent stuff and probably aren't just talking through their _). > What would the possible alternatives be? The W3C version has a strong > bias towards royalty-free, since that's W3C's overarching policy. The > IETF's policy is different, and the board's charge would have to be > different. Really, with the exception that it needs legal input, such > a group would actually be a design team that is supposed to look at the > tradeoffs (per our policies) and make a recommendation to the WG. [LR:] Yep. In true open source fashion, I'm e
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Lawrence Rosen wrote: Steven, thanks very much for your email. My comments are below. /Larry Larry - it is inappropriate for the IETF to be creating hurdles for those that are unwilling to support the mandatory new licensing requirements considering those are not part of the original or updated charters to the IETF itself. Nor is it possible to force those who already made their standards through RFC2026 as to these newly created terms and conditions for the same service. Todd Glassey -Original Message- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:s...@cs.columbia.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:45 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: Ted Ts'o wrote: So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the reader" care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process documents from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. I thought John and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort of like Windows might provide a model for a Linux open source program, without the actual code being yet written. :-) Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a draft, although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process bigots want to comment on that flaw tonight too? I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group (PSIG) charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of the W3C Patent Policy (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific document sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or royalty-free or any other of the political patent battles that divide us. They are merely open process descriptions, just like a draft here ought to be. I think it's a fair start, though I note that 7.5.3 carries with it a fairly strong bias towards royalty-free terms. But let me translate. [LR:] I share that bias, but that's an IETF battle for another day. For now, I'm glad that you think of this as "a fair start". Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had intended), [LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have to agitate and recruit an expert team over every question, when a simple question referred to an IPR Advisory Board for an answer will probably suffice? But like most of your points in this paragraph, it's open for discussion you're suggesting (translated IETF terms) that when a WG encounters a patent thought to be related, a group will be formed [LR:] Or already exists consisting of the AD, the WG chair(s) ex officio, representatives of the WG (presumably designated by the chair(s)), perhaps an IAB liason [LR:] No comment. Up to you. -- and the IETF patent counsel. [LR:] Be very careful. No attorney who can be deemed to speak on behalf of IETF regarding patents should be there opining IETF's opinion about actual patents. Instead, I recommend that we have an invited (and probably open) selection of other attorneys who are willing to sign up and actually participate as individuals, not representing specific clients and speaking with appropriate liability caveats. For process purposes, however, the IPR Advisory Board can probably be chaired by an IETF patent counsel just to make sure everyone behaves We'll have to see how many brave attorneys are actually willing to participate in the entire IETF community's behalf, but if W3C is an example, we'll find lots of willing attorneys. :-) What is the analog to "representatives of each member organization"? Volunteers not from the WG? Selected by whom? The usual IETF practice would be appointment by the AD and/or the IAB, I suspect. [LR:] ...And even some non-attorneys; I'm not prejudiced In light of IETF's openness, anyone who is willing to sign up and actually participate, although I think most engineers will find the mailing list itself boring. Mostly it would consist of people reading the technology proposals, reading the patent disclosures, and opining about whether they match up. No guarantees or warranties. Just experts cooperating to advise non-experts so we can get IETF work done. Let's keep those discussions off the WG lists (where they distract everyone unnecessarily) and onto a single IPR Advisory Board (with people who actually like reading patent stuff and probably aren't just talking through their _). What would the possible alternatives be? The W3C version has a strong bias towards royalty-free, since that's W3
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:17:39 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: > > Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had > > intended), > > [LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have > to agitate and recruit an expert team over every question, when a > simple question referred to an IPR Advisory Board for an answer will > probably suffice? But like most of your points in this paragraph, > it's open for discussion > The advantage of a per-WG board is that members would likely have familiarity with the technology and history of the field. The advantage of a standing board is familiarity with patents and procedures. Pick it... > [LR:] Be very careful. No attorney who can be deemed to speak on > behalf of IETF regarding patents should be there opining IETF's > opinion about actual patents. Instead, I recommend that we have an > invited (and probably open) selection of other attorneys who are > willing to sign up and actually participate as individuals, not > representing specific clients and speaking with appropriate liability > caveats. For process purposes, however, the IPR Advisory Board can > probably be chaired by an IETF patent counsel just to make sure > everyone behaves We'll have to see how many brave attorneys are > actually willing to participate in the entire IETF community's > behalf, but if W3C is an example, we'll find lots of willing > attorneys. :-) I wonder -- the IETF has been known to be hostile to lawyers... > > Anyway -- I think this is a promising suggestion, and not > > inconsistent with IETF practice or policy. But a fully-fleshed out > > I-D -- one that addresses the membership and the alternatives -- is > > probably needed, if only as a matter of form. > > [LR:] Ah yes, form. :-) Does anyone else volunteer? Do we have a > second? I'll participate, but I sure don't have the cycles to write anything, nor am I likely to be at very many IETF meetings for the PAG WG or even the PAG bar bof... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
> FSF is very well intentioned; don't understand me to say otherwise. That > said, I think their view on IPR is pretty extreme - "no IPR is acceptable". Perhaps that is their view as an organization, but if the IETF engages with the FSF to get individuals involved in the IPR discussions, I think you will find more flexibility of viewpoint. If the IETF chooses to ignore the FSF, I don't think that strategy will work. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: Referencesto Redphone's "patent")
Do you think that the IETF has changed direction though? Methinks not. This is one of those issues where there is a faction that will defend the status quo regardless of the flaws that are revealed. They will wait till the end of the discussion and announce that there is no consensus to do anything differently so they must win. I really do not understand the justification for not allowing a WG to state the IPR policy that will apply during the charter process. If we are going to have people volunteer time an effort to create a standard they have the right to know at the start whether the result will be encumbered or if one particular party gets to set up a toll booth. In fact there are two very different status quos. There is the defacto status quo and there is the de jure status quo. And it is rather interesting that on every one of my pet IETF peeves, my position is the defacto status quo and it is only the official status quo that is out of line. Officially a working group does not need to set an IPR standard up front. In practice every working group in any part of the IETF I participate in has to deliver a standard that is compliant with the W3C policy that every essential part of the spec be implementable without using encumbered technology. Attempts to do otherwise are totally futile. I guess it is possible that things are different outside the security, applications and operations side, but I find it very hard to believe that a necessary to implement technology at the Internet level could be encumbered without creating a blogstorm of slashdot proportions. Officially the specs are in the obsolete text format In practice they are written in XML and the engineers implementing them use either the HTML version or buy the O'Rielly nutshell book. Officially there are three stages in the standards process In practice there are two stages. I really wish it was possible to have a discussion on this topic without getting condescending lectures as to why it is absolutely unthinkable to change the official status quo when folk are already doing exactly what I have been suggesting for five years or more. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of TSG Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 5:42 PM To: John Levine Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: Referencesto Redphone's "patent") John Levine wrote: >> But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign >> not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of >> tune? >> > > Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an > misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? > Yes - exactly that. > >From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing > didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, and if as > many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in > question, it'd be a lot. > > The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years > ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally > throw a handful of pebbles at us. > > R's, > John > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent")
One problem I see with that approach would be the inevitable replay of TLS-auth -> a working group agrees up front that there is patent-encumbered technology that is too useful to not include in the spec (which has happened in the IETF in the past), that group would therefore agree to follow that model, and then when they were done, a firestorm of FSF folks who had not even read the material, much less were aware of how the original decision had been reached, would assail the IETF with "the sky is falling" emails about how the world will come to an end if the IETF publishes the specification. Apart from that, it would likely be a total rats nest to try and track what work was done under what IPR agreement; allowing IPR policy decisions to be made on a WG by WG basis would, IMO, be a nightmare, except for the lawyers. Regards, Chuck - Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:18 PM To: TSG; John Levine Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent") Do you think that the IETF has changed direction though? Methinks not. This is one of those issues where there is a faction that will defend the status quo regardless of the flaws that are revealed. They will wait till the end of the discussion and announce that there is no consensus to do anything differently so they must win. I really do not understand the justification for not allowing a WG to state the IPR policy that will apply during the charter process. If we are going to have people volunteer time an effort to create a standard they have the right to know at the start whether the result will be encumbered or if one particular party gets to set up a toll booth. In fact there are two very different status quos. There is the defacto status quo and there is the de jure status quo. And it is rather interesting that on every one of my pet IETF peeves, my position is the defacto status quo and it is only the official status quo that is out of line. Officially a working group does not need to set an IPR standard up front. In practice every working group in any part of the IETF I participate in has to deliver a standard that is compliant with the W3C policy that every essential part of the spec be implementable without using encumbered technology. Attempts to do otherwise are totally futile. I guess it is possible that things are different outside the security, applications and operations side, but I find it very hard to believe that a necessary to implement technology at the Internet level could be encumbered without creating a blogstorm of slashdot proportions. Officially the specs are in the obsolete text format In practice they are written in XML and the engineers implementing them use either the HTML version or buy the O'Rielly nutshell book. Officially there are three stages in the standards process In practice there are two stages. I really wish it was possible to have a discussion on this topic without getting condescending lectures as to why it is absolutely unthinkable to change the official status quo when folk are already doing exactly what I have been suggesting for five years or more. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of TSG Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 5:42 PM To: John Levine Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: Referencesto Redphone's "patent") John Levine wrote: >> But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign >> not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of >> tune? >> > > Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an > misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? > Yes - exactly that. > >From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing > didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, and if as > many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in > question, it'd be a lot. > > The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years > ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally > throw a handful of pebbles at us. > > R's, > John > ___ > Ietf mailing
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
>If the IETF chooses to ignore the FSF, I don't think that strategy will work. It's worked for the past 20 years. What's different now? R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
I am somewhat concerned about the legal liabilities of such a board. There are many types of patent encumberance, as with many other issues in a consensus organization, the stupider the claim, the more difficulty it causes. Lets look at some examples: Case 1: DH/RSA Patent here was completely solid, the idea was genuinely novel, nobody was ever in real doubt as to the ability of RSA to win an infringement claim. And the patent did something that was simply not possible any other way. So the result here was pretty clear-cut, no need for discussion. If you wanted to do RSA you had to got get a license. So the choice was deal or wait till the patent to expire in 2000. Case 2: Certificate Distribution Points Patent here was possibly enforceable, arguments over keeping CDPs in or out delayed the spec. The result here was decided when a work-around was discovered that rendered the patent claims unnecessary. Once it was clear that the outcome would be royalty free regardless the patent lost all value and royalty-free terms were offered. Case 8: The fruitcake Patent Patent here is almost certainly total crud. It is difficult to see how anyone could imagine it had any relationship to the specification whatsoever. The result here, litigation costing the defendants $5 million each. Patent thrown out. Case 9: The fruitcake Patent application Here there is no patent, merely an application. But the applicant wants to extract $$$ and so will issue an IPR declaration which would be funny if not for the outcome of case 8. Likely result, WG runs away from possibly encumbered technology. Until we have a reform of the patent system there is nothing useful that such a board could do. The only useful response to an IPR claim is to find a work around. And that is not something very many people can do. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Steven M. Bellovin Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 2:44 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:20 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: > Ted Ts'o wrote: > > So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and > > assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise > > to the reader" care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* > > it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, > > and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? > > I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process > documents from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. > I thought John and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort > of like Windows might provide a model for a Linux open source > program, without the actual code being yet written. :-) > > Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a > draft, although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process > bigots want to comment on that flaw tonight too? > > I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group > (PSIG) charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of > the W3C Patent Policy > (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be > models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific > document sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or > royalty-free or any other of the political patent battles that divide > us. They are merely open process descriptions, just like a draft here > ought to be. > I think it's a fair start, though I note that 7.5.3 carries with it a fairly strong bias towards royalty-free terms. But let me translate. Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had intended), you're suggesting (translated IETF terms) that when a WG encounters a patent thought to be related, a group will be formed consisting of the AD, the WG chair(s) ex officio, representatives of the WG (presumably designated by the chair(s)), perhaps an IAB liason -- and the IETF patent counsel. What is the analog to "representatives of each member organization"? Volunteers not from the WG? Selected by whom? The usual IETF practice would be appointment by the AD and/or the IAB, I suspect. What would the possible alternatives be? The W3C version has a strong bias towards royalty-free, since that's W3C's overarching policy. The IETF's policy is different, and the board's charge would have to be different. Really, with the exception that it needs legal input, such a group would actually be a design team that is supposed to look at the tradeoffs (per our policies) and make a recommendation to the WG. Anyway -- I think this is a promising suggestion, and not inconsistent with IETF practice or policy. But a fully-fleshed out I-D -- one that addresses the membership and the alternatives -- is probably needed, if only as a matter of form. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb __
RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent")
Chuck, The current situation is that the IPR policy is set by the WGs. My view is that the only interesting IPR out there is the almost negligible proportion that describes something that can only be done in one particular way. The only IPR in the technology space that I am aware of that presents a genuinely compelling cost/benefit today is DRM technology. The complaint about the licensing terms would be the least of our FSF problems... But why should we care? If Lyndon LaRouche or L Ron Hubbard decide to take up an IETF cause, are we obligated to comply with the demands of their minions? I think not. -Original Message- From: Powers Chuck-RXCP20 [mailto:chuck.pow...@motorola.com] Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 5:32 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; TSG; John Levine Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent") One problem I see with that approach would be the inevitable replay of TLS-auth -> a working group agrees up front that there is patent-encumbered technology that is too useful to not include in the spec (which has happened in the IETF in the past), that group would therefore agree to follow that model, and then when they were done, a firestorm of FSF folks who had not even read the material, much less were aware of how the original decision had been reached, would assail the IETF with "the sky is falling" emails about how the world will come to an end if the IETF publishes the specification. Apart from that, it would likely be a total rats nest to try and track what work was done under what IPR agreement; allowing IPR policy decisions to be made on a WG by WG basis would, IMO, be a nightmare, except for the lawyers. Regards, Chuck - Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:18 PM To: TSG; John Levine Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent") Do you think that the IETF has changed direction though? Methinks not. This is one of those issues where there is a faction that will defend the status quo regardless of the flaws that are revealed. They will wait till the end of the discussion and announce that there is no consensus to do anything differently so they must win. I really do not understand the justification for not allowing a WG to state the IPR policy that will apply during the charter process. If we are going to have people volunteer time an effort to create a standard they have the right to know at the start whether the result will be encumbered or if one particular party gets to set up a toll booth. In fact there are two very different status quos. There is the defacto status quo and there is the de jure status quo. And it is rather interesting that on every one of my pet IETF peeves, my position is the defacto status quo and it is only the official status quo that is out of line. Officially a working group does not need to set an IPR standard up front. In practice every working group in any part of the IETF I participate in has to deliver a standard that is compliant with the W3C policy that every essential part of the spec be implementable without using encumbered technology. Attempts to do otherwise are totally futile. I guess it is possible that things are different outside the security, applications and operations side, but I find it very hard to believe that a necessary to implement technology at the Internet level could be encumbered without creating a blogstorm of slashdot proportions. Officially the specs are in the obsolete text format In practice they are written in XML and the engineers implementing them use either the HTML version or buy the O'Rielly nutshell book. Officially there are three stages in the standards process In practice there are two stages. I really wish it was possible to have a discussion on this topic without getting condescending lectures as to why it is absolutely unthinkable to change the official status quo when folk are already doing exactly what I have been suggesting for five years or more. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of TSG Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 5:42 PM To: John Levine Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: Referencesto Redphone's "patent") John Levine wrote: >> But are the 1,000 or so email
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:17:39 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" wrote: Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had intended), [LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have to agitate and recruit an expert team over every question, when a simple question referred to an IPR Advisory Board for an answer will probably suffice? But like most of your points in this paragraph, it's open for discussion The advantage of a per-WG board is that members would likely have familiarity with the technology and history of the field. The advantage of a standing board is familiarity with patents and procedures. Pick it... Patents and Procedures. [LR:] Be very careful. No attorney who can be deemed to speak on behalf of IETF regarding patents should be there opining IETF's opinion about actual patents. Instead, I recommend that we have an invited (and probably open) selection of other attorneys who are willing to sign up and actually participate as individuals, not representing specific clients and speaking with appropriate liability caveats. For process purposes, however, the IPR Advisory Board can probably be chaired by an IETF patent counsel just to make sure everyone behaves We'll have to see how many brave attorneys are actually willing to participate in the entire IETF community's behalf, but if W3C is an example, we'll find lots of willing attorneys. :-) I wonder -- the IETF has been known to be hostile to lawyers... Anyway -- I think this is a promising suggestion, and not inconsistent with IETF practice or policy. But a fully-fleshed out I-D -- one that addresses the membership and the alternatives -- is probably needed, if only as a matter of form. [LR:] Ah yes, form. :-) Does anyone else volunteer? Do we have a second? I'll participate, but I sure don't have the cycles to write anything, nor am I likely to be at very many IETF meetings for the PAG WG or even the PAG bar bof... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Michael Dillon wrote: FSF is very well intentioned; don't understand me to say otherwise. That said, I think their view on IPR is pretty extreme - "no IPR is acceptable". Perhaps that is their view as an organization, but if the IETF engages with the FSF to get individuals involved in the IPR discussions, I think you will find more flexibility of viewpoint. Yes but their control is narrow so derivatives are freely made. That's not the license everyone wants for their standard but it serves FSF users. So we should do something that allows any type of standard (open use, open-source, proprietary/controlled use) to be done with the same standards development and validation framework. To do that maybe the licensing needs to be rethought... If the IETF chooses to ignore the FSF, I don't think that strategy will work. Which brings us back to the idea that the party managing the standard development effort should define the licensing model rather than the model being uniform to the IETF. Seriously think this through - how about we modify the standards process so that the WIG Development effort selects the specific licensing model for that effort. In fact you may have several efforts implementing the same services side by side, except with separate licensing's. I think that the licensing model should be totally linked to the standard effort so everyone gets what they want... You guys want ultimate control - so take it - move the licensing process into the Project Definition and allow people to select those models already in place or specify something different. This means that the issue of negotiating this goes away and we can get back to more important topics. We also will in one fell swoop open the IETF to totally open-sourced standards models and proprietary ones too. Imagine that - if the licensing model is just moved into the standard itself from the boiler plate housed in the BCP's. Todd Glassey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:24:20PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process documents > from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. I thought John > and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort of like Windows might > provide a model for a Linux open source program, without the actual code > being yet written. :-) Well, a key part of the W3C model is that you can't even post on a wg mailing list without you and/or your organization signing contract (I believe they require an ink signature, but I'm not 100% sure of that), or being explicitly invited by the chair as an "guest" or "invited expert", and with everyone in the wg being told that any postings from said "guest" must be treated as "unclean, unclean!" since they haven't signed the ink contract. I will not, wryly, that having a closed mailing list does solve the FSF problem, since they will no longer be able to spam our mailing lists. The question is whether the cure is worse than the disease. However, for you to say that this isn't a big deal to adapt to IETF mechanisms is handwaving --- unless you're saying that closed workgroups that require legal contracts to be signed before anyone is allowed to participate is a good thing ? - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's "patent")
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:11:26PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a > loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? This is not > the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process > to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Given how badly misinformed the FSF and their 1,000 blind followers were --- no, it's not even a hum. More like the sound of a Concord taking off if an IETF meeting happened to be located in a hotel which was unfortunately located too close to an airport's runways. "Full of sound and jury, signifying nothing..." :-) - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:40:46PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Steven Bellovin wrote: > > All that said, the above is my strawman that I've just torched. This > > is why we need a draft -- until we have one, we won't know if it's a > > plausible, useful idea or not. In fact, a metadraft -- one that simply > > set out the questions that a concrete proposal should address -- would > > be a worthwhile contribution in its own regard. > > In honor of open source, I'm glad to submit someone else's work as my first > draft: http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/. > > This is an effective working model. I'm sure it would have to be revised to > fit IETF's more democratic operations. This model works if you have closed working groups and no one is allowed to participate without first going through a huge amount of bureaucratic rigamarole, and where someone can't even poke their head into a meeting room without being explicitly invited by the chair. It doesn't work at all in an IETF model which is much more open. So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the reader" care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
This discussion of IPR seems to be running in circle. Can't we switch to something else, e.g. whether RFC could be written in some other format than ASCII text? -- Christian Huitema ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:49 -0800 Christian Huitema wrote: > This discussion of IPR seems to be running in circle. Can't we switch > to something else, e.g. whether RFC could be written in some other > format than ASCII text? > Sorry, that idea is patented or something. No, I've got it -- it's a W3C trade secret. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
