sec ADs office hours
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> -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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
[ 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