sec ADs office hours

[Stephen Farrell]

Hi,

Some area directors do "office hours" where they're available
in case folks want to chat about a discuss or other topic. Sean
and I haven't been doing that to date but have decided to give
it a try this time.

So the SEC ADs will be available in room 202 on Thursday from
1300-1500, if you want to come along to talk about some security
thing.

Cheers & sorry for the late notice,
S.

IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[IETF Chair]

The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review and 
comment.

Russ



=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===

Note Well

This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
BCP 79; please read it carefully.

The brief summary:
  - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you need to disclose that fact.
  - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
   publicly archived.

For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Ted Hardie]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM, IETF Chair  wrote
> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review and 
> comment.
>
> Russ
>
>
This same text would read better to me if reordered:

"NOTE WELL

- By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you need to disclose that fact.
  - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
   publicly archived.

This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
BCP 79; please read it carefully.

For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF)."

That puts the most important information higher up the text and, to my
eyes at least,
makes it more prominent.

My two cents,

Ted Hardie


>
> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>
> Note Well
>
> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
> BCP 79; please read it carefully.
>
> The brief summary:
>   - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>   - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
> say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
> applications, you need to disclose that fact.
>   - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>publicly archived.
>
> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
> review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Brian E Carpenter]

I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy
to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people
who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position.

The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say
about the new proposal?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter
   Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880

On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review and 
> comment.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
> 
> Note Well
> 
> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
> BCP 79; please read it carefully.
> 
> The brief summary:
>   - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>   - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
> say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
> applications, you need to disclose that fact.
>   - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>publicly archived.
> 
> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
> review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[John Levine]

Looks much better, people might even read it.

>  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
>applications, you need to disclose that fact.

Perhaps "disclose that fact promptly."

Pete's been reminding us that postponing IPR disclosures until last
call or IESG review is not good.

R's,
John

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Eggert, Lars]

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25, John Levine  wrote:
> Perhaps "disclose that fact promptly."

+1

Since not everyone is aware of what's going on in the IRTF: we recently made a 
minor modification to our IPR statement to that effect. See 
https://www.irtf.org/ipr

One possibility would be that the IESG adopt what we did for the IRTF also for 
the IRTF...

Lars

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Fred Baker (fred)]

This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems 
like a good direction.

One suggestion: it would be good for the reference to BCP 79 be accompanied, at 
least in the web page in question, with a link to the BCP 
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt). I could imagine someone unfamiliar with 
the IETF thinking that this was a reference to the Book of Common Prayer or 
some such thing.

There is a point of disagreement between IRTF and IETF IPR Policy, or at least 
there appeared to be yesterday in ICCRG. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-6.1.3 states that a person who knows 
that someone else has IPR on something is not required, but is encouraged, to 
make it known. The "note well" used in ICCRG yesterday said that someone that 
knew of IPR belonging to someone else was required to disclose it. I'm not sure 
what should be done about that, but the difference seems unhelpful.

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:00 AM, IETF Chair wrote:

> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review and 
> comment.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
> 
> Note Well
> 
> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
> BCP 79; please read it carefully.
> 
> The brief summary:
>  - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
>applications, you need to disclose that fact.
>  - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>   publicly archived.
> 
> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
> review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).


The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. 
   - Marshall McLuhan

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 06/11/2012 15:25, John Levine wrote:
> Looks much better, people might even read it.
> 
>>  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
>>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
>>applications, you need to disclose that fact.
> 
> Perhaps "disclose that fact promptly."
> 
> Pete's been reminding us that postponing IPR disclosures until last
> call or IESG review is not good.

Yes, and the above paragraph would make a very useful preamble to
the existing NOTE WELL, which doesn't make that point explicitly.

Brian

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Eggert, Lars]

Hi,

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:34, Fred Baker (fred)  wrote:
> There is a point of disagreement between IRTF and IETF IPR Policy, or at 
> least there appeared to be yesterday in ICCRG. 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-6.1.3 states that a person who 
> knows that someone else has IPR on something is not required, but is 
> encouraged, to make it known. The "note well" used in ICCRG yesterday said 
> that someone that knew of IPR belonging to someone else was required to 
> disclose it. I'm not sure what should be done about that, but the difference 
> seems unhelpful.

the IRTF statement is at https://www.irtf.org/ipr. For the case you mention, it 
says:

"Finally, the IRTF requests that you file an IPR disclosure with the IETF if 
you recognize IPR owned by others in any IRTF contribution."

"Requests" does not mean "required."

Lars

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Paul Wouters]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:


This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems 
like a good direction.


Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like "a good direction".

For example, how would the new Note Well improve our situation in
the Versign DNSSEC case?

Link to patent: 
http://domainnamewire.com/2012/10/05/verisign-files-patent-application-for-way-of-transfering-hosting-on-dnssec-domains/

Comparison of Patent vs IETF work: http://ubuntuone.com/4Bz1BqOsGMkTUQgViEL0rz

Paul

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Fred Baker (fred)]

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
>> This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and 
>> seems like a good direction.
> 
> Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like "a good direction".

Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. What I 
am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer that I was 
speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is ambiguous; one must 
file IPR statements for standards, but not for informational documents. We 
wound up wandering through the details of legal statements, in which I felt he 
was working pretty hard to make words stand on their heads.

To my small and non-legal mind, the simplest statement is the clearest, and 
what the average IETFer needs is clarity. The policy is, as far as I know, that 
if I have or personally and reasonably know that my company has IPR on a 
document or statement of any category, I need to say so and encourage my 
company to say so; if someone else does, I am encouraged to make the fact 
known. Making that statement in any more complex way gives the appearance of 
complexity of thought, and this particular lawyer was finding 
complexity/ambiguity where no complexity/ambiguity exists. 

KISS.

> For example, how would the new Note Well improve our situation in
> the Versign DNSSEC case?
> 
> Link to patent: 
> http://domainnamewire.com/2012/10/05/verisign-files-patent-application-for-way-of-transfering-hosting-on-dnssec-domains/
> 
> Comparison of Patent vs IETF work: http://ubuntuone.com/4Bz1BqOsGMkTUQgViEL0rz
> 
> Paul


The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. 
   - Marshall McLuhan

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Dave Crocker]

On 11/6/2012 10:00 AM, IETF Chair wrote:

The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review and 
comment.

Russ



=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===

Note Well

This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in


IPR -> Intellectual Property Rights



BCP 79; please read it carefully.

The brief summary:
   - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.


{ BCP 79 does not describe IETF processes, so you need an additional 
citation. /d }




   - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
 say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
 applications, you need to disclose that fact.



{ the directive here is remarkably soft.  much too soft, IMO.  a 
sentence structure that's a bit too complicated.  so...}


A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or discuss in 
any IETF context.  If you are aware that any contribution you make is 
covered by a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to 
disclose that fact IMMEDIATELY.




   - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
publicly archived.

For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).




d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[Lee, Yiu]

I am noncom-eligible. After hearing the situation of Mr. Eubanks, I support the 
recall.

Regards,
Yiu

Re: [Fecframe] Last Call: (Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME) to Proposed Standard

[Vincent Roca]

Mike,

Thanks for your comments. It seems your email didn't show up in the fecframe
list (it's not in the mailing list archive either) which explains why we didn't 
answer
so far.


Concerning (1), you're right and here is the way we address it both in the
introduction and section 5.3.

** Introduction:

OLD:
   More specifically, the [RFC5510] document introduced such Reed-
   Solomon codes and several associated FEC schemes that are compatible
   with the [RFC5052] framework.  The present document inherits from
   [RFC5510] the specification of the core Reed-Solomon codes based on
   Vandermonde matrices, and specifies a simple FEC scheme that is
   compatible with the FECFRAME framework [RFC6363].  Therefore this
   document specifies only the information specific to the FECFRAME
   context and refers to [RFC5510] for the core specifications of the
   codes.  To that purpose, the present document introduces:

   o  the Fully-Specified FEC Scheme with FEC Encoding ID XXX that
  specifies a simple way of using of Reed-Solomon codes over
  GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, with a simple FEC encoding for
  arbitrary packet flows;


NEW:
   More specifically, the [RFC5510] document introduced such Reed-
   Solomon codes and several associated FEC schemes that are compatible
   with the [RFC5052] framework.  The present document inherits from
   [RFC5510], Section 8 "Reed-Solomon Codes Specification for the
   Erasure Channel", the specifications of the core Reed-Solomon codes
   based on Vandermonde matrices, and specifies a simple FEC scheme that
   is compatible with the FECFRAME framework [RFC6363]:

   o  the Fully-Specified FEC Scheme with FEC Encoding ID XXX that
  specifies a simple way of using of Reed-Solomon codes over
  GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, with a simple FEC encoding for
  arbitrary packet flows;

   Therefore sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of [RFC5510], that define [RFC5052]
   specific Formats and Procedures, are not considered and are replaced
   by FECFRAME specific Formats and Procedures.

** Section 5.3:

OLD:

   The present document inherits from [RFC5510] the specification of the
   core Reed-Solomon codes based on Vandermonde matrices for a packet
   transmission channel.

NEW:

   The present document inherits from [RFC5510], Section 8 "Reed-Solomon
   Codes Specification for the Erasure Channel", the specifications of
   the core Reed-Solomon codes based on Vandermonde matrices.


As soon as possible, I'll update the LDPC document as well, unlike
what I said previously, in the same manner. Saying that all the Formats
and Procedures of RFC5170 are replaced by FECFRAME variants
can clarify a little bit the document.


Concerning (2), same answer than for the LDPC document (it's not
an exhaustive list).


Cheers,

Vincent, on behalf of the authors


---
• From: "Luby, Michael" 
• To: "ietf at ietf.org" 
• Cc: "Luby, Michael" , "fecframe at 
ietf.org" 
• Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:30:31 +
• In-reply-to: <20121008141129.10923.33854.idtracker at ietfa.amsl.com>

Some quick comments.

(1) This proposal relies upon parts of RFC 5510 for the definition of the
underlying Reed-Solomon code.  However, it isn't completely explicit in
this proposal about what exact parts/sections of RFC 5510 are to be used
in this proposal and how.  It would seem that explicit references to the
particular sections of RFC 5510 that are being used, and exactly how these
parts of RFC 5510 are being inherited and used, would be useful (probably
necessary).

(2) This proposal references RFC 5170 and RFC 5053, and makes some
comparisons.  However, there is also RFC 6330 that is relevant and is not
mentioned or referenced in this proposal.  It would seem appropriate to do
so.

Thanks, Mike


On Oct 8, 2012, 16:11, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the FEC Framework WG (fecframe) to
> consider the following document:
> - 'Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for
> FECFRAME'
>   as Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>   This document describes a fully-specified simple FEC scheme for Reed-
>   Solomon codes over GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, that can be used to
>   protect arbitrary media streams along the lines defined by the
>   FECFRAME framework.  Reed-Solomon codes belong to the class of
>   Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) codes which means they offer optimal
>   protection against packet erasures.  They are also systematic codes,
>   which means that the source symbols are part of the encoding symbols.
>   The price to pay is a limit on the maximum source block si

Re: [Fecframe] Last Call: (Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for FECFRAME) to Proposed Standard

[Luby, Michael]

Vincent, 
Thanks, I think this will help the document.
Mike

On 11/6/12 4:38 PM, "Vincent Roca"  wrote:

>Mike,
>
>Thanks for your comments. It seems your email didn't show up in the
>fecframe
>list (it's not in the mailing list archive either) which explains why we
>didn't answer
>so far.
>
>
>Concerning (1), you're right and here is the way we address it both in the
>introduction and section 5.3.
>
>** Introduction:
>
>OLD:
>   More specifically, the [RFC5510] document introduced such Reed-
>   Solomon codes and several associated FEC schemes that are compatible
>   with the [RFC5052] framework.  The present document inherits from
>   [RFC5510] the specification of the core Reed-Solomon codes based on
>   Vandermonde matrices, and specifies a simple FEC scheme that is
>   compatible with the FECFRAME framework [RFC6363].  Therefore this
>   document specifies only the information specific to the FECFRAME
>   context and refers to [RFC5510] for the core specifications of the
>   codes.  To that purpose, the present document introduces:
>
>   o  the Fully-Specified FEC Scheme with FEC Encoding ID XXX that
>  specifies a simple way of using of Reed-Solomon codes over
>  GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, with a simple FEC encoding for
>  arbitrary packet flows;
>
>
>NEW:
>   More specifically, the [RFC5510] document introduced such Reed-
>   Solomon codes and several associated FEC schemes that are compatible
>   with the [RFC5052] framework.  The present document inherits from
>   [RFC5510], Section 8 "Reed-Solomon Codes Specification for the
>   Erasure Channel", the specifications of the core Reed-Solomon codes
>   based on Vandermonde matrices, and specifies a simple FEC scheme that
>   is compatible with the FECFRAME framework [RFC6363]:
>
>   o  the Fully-Specified FEC Scheme with FEC Encoding ID XXX that
>  specifies a simple way of using of Reed-Solomon codes over
>  GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, with a simple FEC encoding for
>  arbitrary packet flows;
>
>   Therefore sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of [RFC5510], that define [RFC5052]
>   specific Formats and Procedures, are not considered and are replaced
>   by FECFRAME specific Formats and Procedures.
>
>** Section 5.3:
>
>OLD:
>
>   The present document inherits from [RFC5510] the specification of the
>   core Reed-Solomon codes based on Vandermonde matrices for a packet
>   transmission channel.
>
>NEW:
>
>   The present document inherits from [RFC5510], Section 8 "Reed-Solomon
>   Codes Specification for the Erasure Channel", the specifications of
>   the core Reed-Solomon codes based on Vandermonde matrices.
>
>
>As soon as possible, I'll update the LDPC document as well, unlike
>what I said previously, in the same manner. Saying that all the Formats
>and Procedures of RFC5170 are replaced by FECFRAME variants
>can clarify a little bit the document.
>
>
>Concerning (2), same answer than for the LDPC document (it's not
>an exhaustive list).
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Vincent, on behalf of the authors
>
>
>---
>   € From: "Luby, Michael" 
>   € To: "ietf at ietf.org" 
>   € Cc: "Luby, Michael" , "fecframe at ietf.org"
>
>   € Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:30:31 +
>   € In-reply-to: <20121008141129.10923.33854.idtracker at ietfa.amsl.com>
>
>Some quick comments.
>
>(1) This proposal relies upon parts of RFC 5510 for the definition of the
>underlying Reed-Solomon code.  However, it isn't completely explicit in
>this proposal about what exact parts/sections of RFC 5510 are to be used
>in this proposal and how.  It would seem that explicit references to the
>particular sections of RFC 5510 that are being used, and exactly how these
>parts of RFC 5510 are being inherited and used, would be useful (probably
>necessary).
>
>(2) This proposal references RFC 5170 and RFC 5053, and makes some
>comparisons.  However, there is also RFC 6330 that is relevant and is not
>mentioned or referenced in this proposal.  It would seem appropriate to do
>so.
>
>Thanks, Mike
>
>
>On Oct 8, 2012, 16:11, The IESG wrote:
>> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the FEC Framework WG (fecframe) to
>> consider the following document:
>> - 'Simple Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction (FEC) Scheme for
>> FECFRAME'
>>   as Proposed Standard
>> 
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-22. Exceptionally, comments may
>>be
>> sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>> 
>> Abstract
>> 
>> 
>>   This document describes a fully-specified simple FEC scheme for Reed-
>>   Solomon codes over GF(2^^m), with 2 <= m <= 16, that can be used to
>>   protect arbitrary media streams along the lines defined by the
>>   FECFRAME framework.  Reed-Solomon codes belong to the class of
>>   Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) codes which means t

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Ted Hardie]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Dave Crocker  wrote:
>
>
> { the directive here is remarkably soft.  much too soft, IMO.  a sentence
> structure that's a bit too complicated.  so...}
>
> A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or discuss in any
> IETF context.  If you are aware that any contribution you make is covered by
> a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to disclose that fact
> IMMEDIATELY.
>

I note that this is not the same language as is in BCP 79, which says:
" as  soon as reasonably possible " instead of IMMEDIATELY.  I don't
believe the NOTE WELL should disagree with the BCP on that point.  If
this changes, it should change in the BCP first/simultaneously.

regards,

Ted Hardie

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Russ Housley]

Brian:

Jorge has reviewed this text.  He says that the current text and this proposed 
text are both summaries.  Both say that it is important to read the BCP to get 
all of the details.

Russ


On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy
> to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people
> who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position.
> 
> The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say
> about the new proposal?
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
>   Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880
> 
> On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote:
>> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review and 
>> comment.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>> 
>> Note Well
>> 
>> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
>> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
>> BCP 79; please read it carefully.
>> 
>> The brief summary:
>>  - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>>  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
>>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
>>applications, you need to disclose that fact.
>>  - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>>   publicly archived.
>> 
>> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
>> review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
>> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
>> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Stephan Wenger]

Hi,
Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with
the Note Well?
As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be
found inline.
Stephan

On 11.6.2012 10:00 , "IETF Chair"  wrote:

>The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review
>and comment.
>
>Russ
>
>
>
>=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>
>Note Well
>
>This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
>doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
>BCP 79; please read it carefully.
>
>The brief summary:
>  - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
>applications, you need to disclose that fact.

1) I'm not in favor of this formulation because it can be read to impose a
stronger disclosure obligation on a participant than BCP 79.
Specifically, as Lars has already pointed out and according to BCP 79, I'm
not "needed" to disclose a patent I'm reasonably and personally aware of
that reads on a document of mine, if that patent is assigned to someone
else but myself and my sponsor/employer, ... For good reasons, BCP 79 does
not require third party disclosures.  I hope that the (few) added words
can be accommodated.
2) On the other hand, the issue of timeliness is not covered at all (as
others have already pointed out.)

I'm especially worried of point 1, which can be seen as a policy change
through the back door.  If, based on this hypothetical Note Well, we would
end up with an IETF disclosure culture in which third party disclosures
would become the norm rather than an exception, we could well end up with
a brain drain especially from folks not quite as senior in their
respective company hierarchy to have the leeway to ignore company guidance
about patents. 


>  - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>   publicly archived.
>
>For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
>review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
>Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
>Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Dave Crocker]

On 11/6/2012 10:14 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

That puts the most important information higher up the text and, to
my eyes at least, makes it more prominent.


+1



On 11/6/2012 12:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25
AM, Dave Crocker  wrote:



{ the directive here is remarkably soft.  much too soft, IMO.  a
sentence structure that's a bit too complicated.  so...}

A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or
discuss in any IETF context.  If you are aware that any
contribution you make is  covered by
a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to disclose
that fact IMMEDIATELY.



I note that this is not the same language as is in BCP 79, which
says: " as  soon as reasonably possible " instead of IMMEDIATELY.  I
don't believe the NOTE WELL should disagree with the BCP on that
point.


Thanks for checking the BCP language.  Hadn't occurred to me that it had 
anything close to an 'urgency' tone.  Yes, we should use exactly the 
same text here, IMO.


My main concern is that the summary communicate both an imperative to 
report and a directive that it be done real soon.


d/

d/


--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 06/11/2012 17:43, Russ Housley wrote:
> Brian:
> 
> Jorge has reviewed this text.  He says that the current text and this 
> proposed text are both summaries.  Both say that it is important to read the 
> BCP to get all of the details.

OK, good. On reflection my feeling is that we definitely need the introductory
paragraph stressing the disclosure requirement, but I remain bothered by taking
out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span,
but there are not really all that many words in the current version.

   Brian

> Russ
> 
> 
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy
>> to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people
>> who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position.
>>
>> The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say
>> about the new proposal?
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian Carpenter
>>   Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880
>>
>> On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote:
>>> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review 
>>> and comment.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>>>
>>> Note Well
>>>
>>> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
>>> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
>>> BCP 79; please read it carefully.
>>>
>>> The brief summary:
>>>  - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>>>  - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
>>>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
>>>applications, you need to disclose that fact.
>>>  - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>>>   publicly archived.
>>>
>>> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
>>> review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
>>> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
>>> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
> 
> 

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Russ Housley]

Stephan:

Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us 
that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to 
participants.

Russ


On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

> Hi,
> Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with
> the Note Well?
> As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be
> found inline.
> Stephan
> 
> On 11.6.2012 10:00 , "IETF Chair"  wrote:
> 
>> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review
>> and comment.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>> 
>> Note Well
>> 
>> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
>> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
>> BCP 79; please read it carefully.
>> 
>> The brief summary:
>> - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
>>   say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
>>   applications, you need to disclose that fact.
> 
> 1) I'm not in favor of this formulation because it can be read to impose a
> stronger disclosure obligation on a participant than BCP 79.
> Specifically, as Lars has already pointed out and according to BCP 79, I'm
> not "needed" to disclose a patent I'm reasonably and personally aware of
> that reads on a document of mine, if that patent is assigned to someone
> else but myself and my sponsor/employer, ... For good reasons, BCP 79 does
> not require third party disclosures.  I hope that the (few) added words
> can be accommodated.
> 2) On the other hand, the issue of timeliness is not covered at all (as
> others have already pointed out.)
> 
> I'm especially worried of point 1, which can be seen as a policy change
> through the back door.  If, based on this hypothetical Note Well, we would
> end up with an IETF disclosure culture in which third party disclosures
> would become the norm rather than an exception, we could well end up with
> a brain drain especially from folks not quite as senior in their
> respective company hierarchy to have the leeway to ignore company guidance
> about patents. 
> 
> 
>> - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>>  publicly archived.
>> 
>> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
>> review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
>> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
>> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
> 
> 

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Dave Crocker]

On 11/6/2012 2:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

 but I remain bothered by taking
out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span,
but there are not really all that many words in the current version.



Simple human factors:

   You cannot expect anyone to process a mass of text from a slide and 
develop useful understanding, nevermind take required action.



Making a useful slide requires synthesizing it to show only the 
essential information.  That's what I understand the current excise to 
be and it is exactly the right thing to do.


The slide we show should have a very terse statement of the topic, the 
reader's obligations and where to go to find out more.


d/

--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[David Morris]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 11/6/2012 12:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25
> AM, Dave Crocker  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > { the directive here is remarkably soft.  much too soft, IMO.  a
> > > sentence structure that's a bit too complicated.  so...}
> > > 
> > > A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or
> > > discuss in any IETF context.  If you are aware that any
> > > contribution you make is  covered by
> > > a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to disclose
> > > that fact IMMEDIATELY.
> > > 
> > 
> > I note that this is not the same language as is in BCP 79, which
> > says: " as  soon as reasonably possible " instead of IMMEDIATELY.  I
> > don't believe the NOTE WELL should disagree with the BCP on that
> > point.
> 
> Thanks for checking the BCP language.  Hadn't occurred to me that it had
> anything close to an 'urgency' tone.  Yes, we should use exactly the same text
> here, IMO.
> 
> My main concern is that the summary communicate both an imperative to report
> and a directive that it be done real soon.

I agree with real soon, but I think there may be times when the disclosure
needs to be approved by coporate legal folks, so I think something like:

   as soon as legally permitted

implies immediacy but ackowledges real world constraints.

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 06/11/2012 19:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/6/2012 2:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>  but I remain bothered by taking
>> out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span,
>> but there are not really all that many words in the current version.
> 
> 
> Simple human factors:
> 
>You cannot expect anyone to process a mass of text from a slide and
> develop useful understanding, nevermind take required action.
> 
> 
> Making a useful slide requires synthesizing it to show only the
> essential information.  That's what I understand the current excise to
> be and it is exactly the right thing to do.
> 
> The slide we show should have a very terse statement of the topic, the
> reader's obligations and where to go to find out more.

The slide, yes. But there is the version you see on line, where I think
the details are appropriate.

Brian

RE: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[George, Wes]

> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> IETF Chair
>
> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>
>   - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>publicly archived.
>
[WEG] I might suggest a small tweak (in brackets below) to this part of the 
text given some of the previous discussions around blue sheets/privacy and 
documenting people's participation in IETF potentially against their will:

- You understand that meetings [and therefore your participation in them] might 
be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived.
I think this makes things a little more explicit in a way that may be helpful 
to those who are less familiar with IETF meetings.

Otherwise, consider this a +1 to comments supporting simplification of the Note 
Well text to make it a more effective summary.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Eric Burger]

Way too simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Can't we play  
lawyer-on-the-list and make it a full page again?


--
Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to lemonade!  
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/


-Original message-
From: IETF Chair 
To: IETF Announce 
Cc: IETF 
Sent: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 15:01:59 GMT+00:00
Subject: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please review and  
comment.


Russ



=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===

Note Well

This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
BCP 79; please read it carefully.

The brief summary:
 - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
 - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
   say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
   applications, you need to disclose that fact.
 - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
  publicly archived.

For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[tglassey]

On 11/6/2012 12:46 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
Way too simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Can't we play 
lawyer-on-the-list and make it a full page again?


--
Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to lemonade! 
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/



-Original message-

*From: *IETF Chair *
To: *IETF Announce *
Cc: *IETF *
Sent: *Tue, Nov 6, 2012 15:01:59 GMT+00:00*
Subject: *IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please
review and comment.

Russ



=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===

Note Well

This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
BCP 79; please read it carefully.

The brief summary:
- By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
- If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you need to disclose that fact.


There is no penalty for NOT DISCLOSING and that is the issue.


- You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
publicly archived.


So this is the Privacy Waiver Statement.



For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).




--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended 
recipient.

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Scott O Bradner]

On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred)  wrote:
> 
> Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. What I 
> am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer that I was 
> speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is ambiguous; one 
> must file IPR statements for standards, but not for informational documents. 
> We wound up wandering through the details of legal statements, in which I 
> felt he was working pretty hard to make words stand on their heads.

in case anyone wonders

one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very carefully 
fixed
in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions

Scott

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[Wes Hardaker]

Olafur Gudmundsson  writes:

> If you agree with this petition please either comment on this posting,

With regret, if you still need more signatures, you can add my name to
the list and I am nomcom eligible.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Stephan Wenger]

Hi Russ,

On 11.6.2012 14:01 , "Russ Housley"  wrote:

>Stephan:
>
>Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
>to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
>responsibilities to participants.

That's an interesting statement.  To summarize the (long) message below, I
don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant
numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late".

I went through the recent IPR disclosures (July 2012 until present) to
check against what documents they have been made.  In tabular form:
Draft-00: 13
Draft-01:  8
Draft-02:  7
Draft-03:  9
Draft-04 and later drafts: 14
Issued RFCs: 4
3rd party disclosures: 15

The 3rd party disclosures obviously are irrelevant here, as there is no
disclosure obligation for third party patent rights per BCP 79, and where
there is no obligation to disclose there cannot be a late disclosure.

Of the four disclosures made against issued RFCs, only one had a match
between an inventor's name and the RFC's author list.  That one is pledged
as RAND-Z.  It's undoubtedly late, but I guess that the rightholder
attempted to cure that lateness by offering advantageous licensing terms.
The other disclosures are RAND, but there is no indication that the
companies making the disclosure were contributing, at least not based on
matching inventor/author names (or my vague recollection of who said what
in meeting rooms at the time).   It can well be that the disclosures are
completely voluntarily, or that the disclosure requirement was triggered
just recently.  There are many examples on why this may have happened: one
of the authors joint the company in question just recently (which is the
case for one of the disclosures), or that the patent changed hands just
recently (which was the case in one of the Opus-related declarations that
looked, at the first glance, late, but clearly wasn't.)  I will also note
that one company that made a disclosure is not an IETF regular, and the
other has a comparatively small delegation for its size.  In conclusion, I
don't believe that any of the four cases have been shown to be late
disclosures, and my personal feeling is that it is highly likely that none
of them is.

As for the disclosures against older drafts (04+), they may or may not be
late.  A disclosure could be made against subject matter that has just
recently been included into a draft that already has some history.  A
disclosure obligation may have been triggered because a participant from a
given company, for the first time, decided to comment on the draft.  And
so on.  Based on the information I have, I could not conclude that there
is a single late disclosure, although I would consider it likely that
there are a few.  

As for disclosures against drafts 00 through 03, I would argue that most,
if not all, of these disclosures are probably timely.  A year or so is not
an unreasonable time frame for a company to make a disclosure, considering
the amount of paperwork and coordination required to do so.  It's not only
that a company needs to determine, for itself, whether a disclosure is
required (draw up a claim chart, have it checked by legal, understand the
role of the participant, understand the--rather exotic--IETF patent policy
among the other dozens of policies of bodies the company may be involved
in), but the company has also to settle on the licensing terms they wish
to offer (which can involve standards people, legal, and business folks,
and in many cases requires multi-level approval).  I have run that process
for one of the larger IETF participating companies in the past, and
believe me, a year is not unrealistic, even after the
policy-understanding-and-advocating phase is behind that company.  As our
policy does NOT specify another timeframe, I don't think that an argument
to the contrary is bearing as much weight as the procedural argument made
here. 

(Yes, when analyzing the drafts I have been sloppy in not distinguishing
between WG and individual drafts.  I don't think that would change the
picture significantly.)

So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that
have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be
late; the rest almost certainly is not.

Also, I have not seen a trend going towards late disclosures.  Quite
contrary, I have seen a trend towards early disclosures.

I do not believe that, based on this data, there is a need to change the
Note Well.  If you folks still think a change is needed, then at least do
not make a change in such a way that the new Note Well does not correctly
interpret the policy we have.

The way to fix the "timeliness" of disclosures is to change BCP 79, by
adding a definition of timeliness, preferably a hard one (six months or
something like this).

Stephan





>
>Russ
>
>
>On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker wi

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Stephan Wenger]

On 11.6.2012 16:17 , "Scott O Bradner"  wrote:

>
>On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred)  wrote:
>> 
>> Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases.
>>What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer
>>that I was speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is
>>ambiguous; one must file IPR statements for standards, but not for
>>informational documents. We wound up wandering through the details of
>>legal statements, in which I felt he was working pretty hard to make
>>words stand on their heads.
>
>in case anyone wonders
>
>one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very
>carefully fixed
>in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions

ALL IETF contributions.  NOT all contributions to the RFC editor, and not
all RFCs.  (Which is of a certain relevance given, for example, the VP8
codec definition RFC)

And, only if the IPR in question is yours or your employer's.

Stephan

>
>Scott

Re: Recall Petition Submission

[Olafur Gudmundsson]

Lynn,

As one of the original signers has been challenged to be NomCom Eligible 
I put forward two more signers

Wes Hardaker wjh...@hardakers.net Sparta
Joao Luis Silva Damas,  j...@isc.org ISC

At this time please do not send me any more signatures
as each person that indicates that they support the recall
decreases the pool of candidates to sit on the recall committee.

thanks
Olafur


On 05/11/2012 15:15, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:


Lynn St. Amour ISOC president,

   In accordance with the rules in RFC 3777 Section 7, I request that
you start recall proceedings  against Mr. Marshall Eubanks as member of
the IAOC as well as IETF Trustee, due to his total disappearance from
the IAOC and IETF Trust for over 3 months, and either inability or
refusal to resign.

Evidence to this effect was presented by Bob Hinden [1], as well as
further evidence that the IETF Trust ousted Mr. Eubanks as  chair of the
IETF Trust[2] , due to his prolonged absence in that body as well .

I as an IETF member in good standing (having attended over 50 meetings
since 1987, including 9 of the last 10 meetings), regrettably request
that you start the recall procedure. Below are listed statements of
support for this recall petition from  more than 20 other NomCom
eligible IETF participants.
The IETF participants below all meet the NomCom criteria as well as the
diversity of organizations set forth in RFC3777,
furthermore none is a current member of IETF/IAB/IRTF/IAOC/ISOC board.

Thanks

   Olafur Gudmundsson

[1]
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=11277&tid=1351092666

[2]
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=65510&tid=1351272565




Signatories:
Olafur Gudmundsson o...@ogud.com  Shinkuro
Joel Jaeggeli joe...@bogus.comZynga inc.
Mike StJohns mstjohns@ comcast.net   ninethpermutation
Warren Kumari   Google
Margaret Wasserman margaret...@gmail.com  Painless Security, LLC

Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl NlNetLabs
Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com No Mountain Software
Fred Baker f...@cisco.com   Cisco
Jaap Akkerhuis j...@nlnetlabs.nl NlNetLabs
James Polk jmp...@cisco.com   Cisco

Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu   Painless Security, LLC.
Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com   Dyn Inc.
Stephen HannaJupiter
Henk Uijterwaal henk.uijerw...@gmail.com Netherlands Forensics Institute
Paul Hoffman VPNC

John Klensin john-i...@jck.com  Self
Mehmet Ersue mehmet.e...@nsn.com  Nokia Siemens Networks
Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org  Thames Stanley
Yiu Lee yiu_...@cable.comcast.com  Comcast
Tero Kivinen kivi...@iki.fi  AuthenTec Oy

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[Carlos Caliente]

Yo, add my name, too.  Now.

I'm NomCom eligible and shit according to RFC 3777, and the last time I
talked at Marshall was at the Philly plenary a few years ago and he was a
total dick.  I don't give seven fucks if he blows his brains out because he
loses his title, I want him gone.  The IETF will be better off without him,
just like Earth.

Good riddance, Marshall.

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Paul Wouters]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:


So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that
have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be
late; the rest almost certainly is not.


Do we have a list of known IPR for which no disclosure was filed
whatsoever (a.k.a. very very very late or possible never filing on
purpose) ? Without that information, I don't think we can judge how
well the Note Well is working currently.

Paul

To the sergeant-at-arms of this list

[Brian E Carpenter]

I'm not quite sure who is the current sergeant-at-arms for the
ietf@ietf.org list, but I request him/her to take immediate
action in response to the highly offensive message just posted,
allegedly by "Carlos Caliente ".
It is obnoxious in too many ways to mention.

If intended to be a joke, it's a bad one. If it's intended to be
deeply sarcastic, I don't think that works in an international
community.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Stephan Wenger]

On 11.6.2012 17:17 , "Paul Wouters"  wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
>> So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that
>> have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be
>> late; the rest almost certainly is not.
>
>Do we have a list of known IPR for which no disclosure was filed
>whatsoever (a.k.a. very very very late or possible never filing on
>purpose) ? Without that information, I don't think we can judge how
>well the Note Well is working currently.

Obviously, I do not have such information.  Let me return the favor: do
you know how much better a shorter, albeit badly aligned with policy, Note
Well would work?

Stephan

>
>Paul
>

Re: To the sergeant-at-arms of this list

[Yoav Nir]

AFAIK it's still Jordi. Anyway, I checked the attendee lists for the last 5 
meetings, and didn't see any Carlos Caliente, although given the gmail address, 
it's probably a pseudoname.

On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I'm not quite sure who is the current sergeant-at-arms for the
> ietf@ietf.org list, but I request him/her to take immediate
> action in response to the highly offensive message just posted,
> allegedly by "Carlos Caliente ".
> It is obnoxious in too many ways to mention.
> 
> If intended to be a joke, it's a bad one. If it's intended to be
> deeply sarcastic, I don't think that works in an international
> community.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Scott O Bradner]

correct - except that the IRTF has adopted the same disclosure requirements

Scott

On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Stephan Wenger  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 11.6.2012 16:17 , "Scott O Bradner"  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred)  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases.
>>> What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer
>>> that I was speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is
>>> ambiguous; one must file IPR statements for standards, but not for
>>> informational documents. We wound up wandering through the details of
>>> legal statements, in which I felt he was working pretty hard to make
>>> words stand on their heads.
>> 
>> in case anyone wonders
>> 
>> one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very
>> carefully fixed
>> in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions
> 
> ALL IETF contributions.  NOT all contributions to the RFC editor, and not
> all RFCs.  (Which is of a certain relevance given, for example, the VP8
> codec definition RFC)
> 
> And, only if the IPR in question is yours or your employer's.
> 
> Stephan
> 
>> 
>> Scott
> 
> 

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Carlos,

As already reported by others, this is clearly offensive and I'm
Requesting, as sergeant-at-arms, the secretariat to take you out of the
list immediately.

Regards,
Jordi






-Mensaje original-
De: Carlos Caliente 
Responder a: 
Fecha: martes, 6 de noviembre de 2012 17:01
Para: 
Asunto: Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

>Yo, add my name, too.  Now.
>
>I'm NomCom eligible and shit according to RFC 3777, and the last time I
>talked at Marshall was at the Philly plenary a few years ago and he was a
>total dick.  I don't give seven fucks if he blows his brains out because
>he loses his title, I want him gone.  The IETF will be better off without
>him, just like Earth.
>
>Good riddance, Marshall.



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Re: Recall petition for Mr. Marshall Eubanks

[IETF Chair]

After a very brief consultation with the IESG, I have asked the Secretariat to 
block the verywarmc...@gmail.com email address from further posting to this 
mail list, and I have asked the Secretariat to delete the message from the mail 
list archive so that searches will not bring it up.

On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[tglassey]

On 11/6/2012 1:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

Hi Russ,

On 11.6.2012 14:01 , "Russ Housley"  wrote:


This isnt complex - if there is a fraud here lets let the FTC deal with 
it.   That is how to keep our hands clean.


So will the Chair ask the IETF Counsel to formally contact the FTC to 
ask them to review this matter.  Then its in the FTC's lap and there is 
no issue for us to worry about.



Todd



Stephan:

Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
responsibilities to participants.

That's an interesting statement.  To summarize the (long) message below, I
don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant
numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late".

I went through the recent IPR disclosures (July 2012 until present) to
check against what documents they have been made.  In tabular form:
Draft-00: 13
Draft-01:  8
Draft-02:  7
Draft-03:  9
Draft-04 and later drafts: 14
Issued RFCs: 4
3rd party disclosures: 15

The 3rd party disclosures obviously are irrelevant here, as there is no
disclosure obligation for third party patent rights per BCP 79, and where
there is no obligation to disclose there cannot be a late disclosure.

Of the four disclosures made against issued RFCs, only one had a match
between an inventor's name and the RFC's author list.  That one is pledged
as RAND-Z.  It's undoubtedly late, but I guess that the rightholder
attempted to cure that lateness by offering advantageous licensing terms.
The other disclosures are RAND, but there is no indication that the
companies making the disclosure were contributing, at least not based on
matching inventor/author names (or my vague recollection of who said what
in meeting rooms at the time).   It can well be that the disclosures are
completely voluntarily, or that the disclosure requirement was triggered
just recently.  There are many examples on why this may have happened: one
of the authors joint the company in question just recently (which is the
case for one of the disclosures), or that the patent changed hands just
recently (which was the case in one of the Opus-related declarations that
looked, at the first glance, late, but clearly wasn't.)  I will also note
that one company that made a disclosure is not an IETF regular, and the
other has a comparatively small delegation for its size.  In conclusion, I
don't believe that any of the four cases have been shown to be late
disclosures, and my personal feeling is that it is highly likely that none
of them is.

As for the disclosures against older drafts (04+), they may or may not be
late.  A disclosure could be made against subject matter that has just
recently been included into a draft that already has some history.  A
disclosure obligation may have been triggered because a participant from a
given company, for the first time, decided to comment on the draft.  And
so on.  Based on the information I have, I could not conclude that there
is a single late disclosure, although I would consider it likely that
there are a few.

As for disclosures against drafts 00 through 03, I would argue that most,
if not all, of these disclosures are probably timely.  A year or so is not
an unreasonable time frame for a company to make a disclosure, considering
the amount of paperwork and coordination required to do so.  It's not only
that a company needs to determine, for itself, whether a disclosure is
required (draw up a claim chart, have it checked by legal, understand the
role of the participant, understand the--rather exotic--IETF patent policy
among the other dozens of policies of bodies the company may be involved
in), but the company has also to settle on the licensing terms they wish
to offer (which can involve standards people, legal, and business folks,
and in many cases requires multi-level approval).  I have run that process
for one of the larger IETF participating companies in the past, and
believe me, a year is not unrealistic, even after the
policy-understanding-and-advocating phase is behind that company.  As our
policy does NOT specify another timeframe, I don't think that an argument
to the contrary is bearing as much weight as the procedural argument made
here.

(Yes, when analyzing the drafts I have been sloppy in not distinguishing
between WG and individual drafts.  I don't think that would change the
picture significantly.)

So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that
have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be
late; the rest almost certainly is not.

Also, I have not seen a trend going towards late disclosures.  Quite
contrary, I have seen a trend towards early disclosures.

I do not believe that, based on this data, there is a need to change the
Note Well.  If you folks still think a change is needed, then at least do
not make a change in such a way that the new Note Well does not correctly
interpret t

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Russ Housley]

Stephan:

>> Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
>> to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
>> responsibilities to participants.
> 
> That's an interesting statement.  To summarize the (long) message below, I
> don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant
> numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late".

If the disclosure is made after the document completes WG Last Call, then it is 
late in the IETF standards process.  When the disclosure comes after this point 
in the process, then we need to loop back and redo some steps.

Russ

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[George Willingmyre]

I  do not argue that sooner is not better w/r to IP disclosures, however see 
practical data  at ETSI  described at 
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912198  Assessing IPR 
Disclosure Within Standard Setting: An ICT Case Study  November 2011  Anne 
Layne-Farrar 


Russ, w/r to timing of disclosures is a "late" disclosure defined anywhere  in 
procedures as stated: "If the disclosure is made after the document completes 
WG Last Call, then it is late in the IETF standards process"


 clip from study 

Specifically, I take an empirical look at the timing of patent disclosures 
within the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, the body 
responsible for some of the world's most prevalent mobile telephony standards. 
I find that most members officially disclose their potentially relevant patents 
after the standard was published, and sometimes considerably so. On the other 
hand, I also find that the delay in declaring patents to ETSI standards has 
been shrinking over time, with disclosures occurring closer to (although for 
the most part still after) the standard publication date for more recent 
standard generations as compared to earlier ones.



George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
301.421.4138
www.gtwassociates.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Russ Housley" 
To: "Stephan Wenger" 
Cc: "IETF" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL


Stephan:

>> Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
>> to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
>> responsibilities to participants.
> 
> That's an interesting statement.  To summarize the (long) message below, I
> don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant
> numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late".

If the disclosure is made after the document completes WG Last Call, then it is 
late in the IETF standards process.  When the disclosure comes after this point 
in the process, then we need to loop back and redo some steps.

Russ

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL/ NEA IPR issues...

[tglassey]

On 11/6/2012 1:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

Hi Russ,

On 11.6.2012 14:01 , "Russ Housley"  wrote:


*'Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant'*

Sunlight is the best disinfectant," a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme 
Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness and 
transparency. I invoke this quote often as executive director of the 
NYSSCPA, to illustrate that _*the most credible and respected 
organizations operate in an atmosphere of avowed openness*_. We should 
not only accept criticism and suggestions, we should embrace them. If 
questions from constituents, the public, or the media make leaders or 
other responsible parties obfuscate, the questions are usually valid and 
the answers are not. _/*People who feel uncomfortable under the bright 
light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide.

*/_

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/1203/nv/nv2.htm

Todd




Stephan:e

Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
responsibilities to participants.

That's an interesting statement.  To summarize the (long) message below, I
don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant
numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late".

I went through the recent IPR disclosures (July 2012 until present) to
check against what documents they have been made.  In tabular form:
Draft-00: 13
Draft-01:  8
Draft-02:  7
Draft-03:  9
Draft-04 and later drafts: 14
Issued RFCs: 4
3rd party disclosures: 15

The 3rd party disclosures obviously are irrelevant here, as there is no
disclosure obligation for third party patent rights per BCP 79, and where
there is no obligation to disclose there cannot be a late disclosure.

Of the four disclosures made against issued RFCs, only one had a match
between an inventor's name and the RFC's author list.  That one is pledged
as RAND-Z.  It's undoubtedly late, but I guess that the rightholder
attempted to cure that lateness by offering advantageous licensing terms.
The other disclosures are RAND, but there is no indication that the
companies making the disclosure were contributing, at least not based on
matching inventor/author names (or my vague recollection of who said what
in meeting rooms at the time).   It can well be that the disclosures are
completely voluntarily, or that the disclosure requirement was triggered
just recently.  There are many examples on why this may have happened: one
of the authors joint the company in question just recently (which is the
case for one of the disclosures), or that the patent changed hands just
recently (which was the case in one of the Opus-related declarations that
looked, at the first glance, late, but clearly wasn't.)  I will also note
that one company that made a disclosure is not an IETF regular, and the
other has a comparatively small delegation for its size.  In conclusion, I
don't believe that any of the four cases have been shown to be late
disclosures, and my personal feeling is that it is highly likely that none
of them is.

As for the disclosures against older drafts (04+), they may or may not be
late.  A disclosure could be made against subject matter that has just
recently been included into a draft that already has some history.  A
disclosure obligation may have been triggered because a participant from a
given company, for the first time, decided to comment on the draft.  And
so on.  Based on the information I have, I could not conclude that there
is a single late disclosure, although I would consider it likely that
there are a few.

As for disclosures against drafts 00 through 03, I would argue that most,
if not all, of these disclosures are probably timely.  A year or so is not
an unreasonable time frame for a company to make a disclosure, considering
the amount of paperwork and coordination required to do so.  It's not only
that a company needs to determine, for itself, whether a disclosure is
required (draw up a claim chart, have it checked by legal, understand the
role of the participant, understand the--rather exotic--IETF patent policy
among the other dozens of policies of bodies the company may be involved
in), but the company has also to settle on the licensing terms they wish
to offer (which can involve standards people, legal, and business folks,
and in many cases requires multi-level approval).  I have run that process
for one of the larger IETF participating companies in the past, and
believe me, a year is not unrealistic, even after the
policy-understanding-and-advocating phase is behind that company.  As our
policy does NOT specify another timeframe, I don't think that an argument
to the contrary is bearing as much weight as the procedural argument made
here.

(Yes, when analyzing the drafts I have been sloppy in not distinguishing
between WG and individual drafts.  I don't think that would change the
picture significantly.)

So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Randy Bush]

let's be simple here.  'late' would seem to be any time after there was
a reasonable expectation that you knew there was a document on which
there was ipr.

randy

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[George Willingmyre]

It is not so simple.   BTW, this is not legal opinion,  rather experience

The phrase  "reasonable expectation" is fraught with difficulty both about 
whether a contribute knew about IP or did not know or should reasonably have 
known and  whether he/she believed any such IP would be  "reasonably 
expected"  to be essential


But my objective in the question  what might be "late" was whether IETF may 
have defined "late" somewhere and the rationale for a new "note well" 
statement that it was because of  recent "late disclosures"


I caution against discouraging disclosures even it they are  "late"

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
301.421.4138
www.gtwassociates.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Randy Bush" 

To: "George Willingmyre" 
Cc: "IETF Disgust" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL



let's be simple here.  'late' would seem to be any time after there was
a reasonable expectation that you knew there was a document on which
there was ipr.

randy

Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

[Randy Bush]

[ my last post on this ]

> But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF
> may have defined "late" somewhere

we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*.  discussion of how
far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the
primrose path.  as professionals of integrity, we should not participate
in submarine exercises.

randy