Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
John, Brian Most standards organizations require that participants who have, or whose company has, IPR relevant to a potential standard, disclose this at an early stage and at least prior to publication. The participants in the IETF are individuals however RFC3979 addresses this by stating that any individual participating in an IETF discussion "must" make a disclosure if they are aware of IPR from themselves, their employer or sponsor, that could be asserted against an implementation of a contribution. The question this raises is - what does participation in a discussion mean? This has been interpreted by courts to mean members of a standards body, people that are subscribed to the email list of the standards body and more broadly, people that would have known that a standard was being developed. Asking the participants in an IETF WG (and not just authors) to disclose any IPR they are aware of that may impact a draft is simply implementing the policy outlined in RFC3979. Personally I'd like to see a broader requirement that IETF participants are asked to request that their company or sponsor perform a quick search of their own patents to see if there is any relevant IPR. Unfortunately, while standards organizations define their patent policies, the interpretation of these is often done in the legal system in the context of a patent infringement case. While we don't like this - it is the world we live in, and we should make sure that the IETF patent policy is implemented in a way that reduces the likelihood of litigation against someone that implements a draft/ RFC/ standard. Regards Alan Clark On 9/18/13 4:23 PM, "John C Klensin" wrote: > > > --On Thursday, September 19, 2013 07:57 +1200 Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > >> On 17/09/2013 05:34, Alan Clark wrote: >> ... >>> It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY >>> for the authors of a draft, and the IETF "reminder" system >>> seems to be focused solely on authors. The duty to disclose >>> IPR lies with any individual or company that participates in >>> the IETF not just authors. >> >> Companies don't participate in the IETF; the duty of >> disclosure is specifically placed on individual contributors >> and applies to patents "reasonably and personally known" to >> them. >> >> IANAL but I did read the BCP. > > Brian, > > That isn't how I interpreted Alan's point. My version would be > that, if the shepherd template writeup says "make sure that the > authors are up-to-date" (or anything equivalent) it should also > say "ask/remind the WG participants too". IMO, that is a > perfectly reasonable and orderly suggestion (and no lawyer is > required to figure it out). One inference from Glen's point > that authors have already certified that they have provided > anything they need to provide by the time an I-D is posted with > the "full compliance" language is that it may actually be more > important to remind general participants in the WG than to ask > the authors. > >john > > >
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
>From 29 years experience in ATIS, CCITT, CEPT, ETSI, IETF, ITU, TIA and other standards organizations and extensive experience with standards that do have associated IPR it is apparent that asking for confirmation at multiple points in the standards development process IS necessary. For example: (a) The ITU requires that IPR holders make statements prior to the publication of a standard. A top 5 telecom equipment provider submitted a proposal to add an a new capability to an existing (IPR free) standard and did NOT state that they had IPR related to this - in fact the inventor on their patent was the person who wrote and submitted the contribution. Some years after the standard was published, when their patent was granted, they started writing to implementers to demand that they take out a license. Intentional abuse of the standards development process DOES happen. (b) We often hear from large organizations that, as they have thousands of patents, they can't possibly know whether they have patents related to a standard or not. Repeatedly asking questions about IPR disclosure IS important as it does make it harder for IPR holders to claim that they did not know. It should be noted that the duty to disclose IPR is NOT ONLY for the authors of a draft, and the IETF "reminder" system seems to be focused solely on authors. The duty to disclose IPR lies with any individual or company that participates in the IETF not just authors. Alan Clark On 9/16/13 1:00 PM, "John C Klensin" wrote: > > > --On Monday, September 16, 2013 19:35 +0700 Glen Zorn > wrote: > >> ... >>> The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we >>> are required to answer the following question which is part >>> of the Shepherd write-up as per the instructions from the >>> IESG http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt: >>> >>>> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate >>>> IPR >>>> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions >>>> of BCP 78 >>>> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. > >>> We have no choice but to relay the question to the authors. >> >> I see, just following orders. > > For whatever it is worth, I think there is a rather different > problem here. I also believe it is easily solved and that, if > it is not, we have a far deeper problem. > > I believe the document writeup that the IESG posts at a given > time is simply a way of identifying the information the IESG > wants (or wants to be reassured about) and a template for a > convenient way to supply that information. If that were not the > case: > > (i) We would expect RFC 4858 to be a BCP, not an > Informational document. > (ii) The writeup template would need to represent > community consensus after IETF LC, not be something the > IESG put together and revises from time to time. > (iii) The various experiments in alternative template > formats and shepherding theories would be improper or > invalid without community consensus, probably expressed > through formal "process experiment" authorizations of > the RFC 3933 species. > > The first sentence of the writeup template, "As required by RFC > 4858, this is the current template..." is technically invalid > because RFC 4858, as an Informational document, cannot _require_ > anything of the standards process. Fortunately, it does not say > "you are required to supply this information in this form" or > "you are required to ask precisely these questions", which would > be far worse. > >> From my point of view, an entirely reasonable response to the > comments above that start "As WG chairs we are required to > answer the following question..." and "We have no choice but to > relay..." is that you are required to do no such thing. The > writeup template is guidance to the shepherd about information > and assurances the IESG wants to have readily available during > the review process, nothing more. I also believe that any AD > who has become sufficiently impressed by his [1] power and the > authority of IETF-created procedures to insist on a WG chair's > asking a question and getting an answer in some particular form > has been on the IESG, or otherwise "in the leadership" much too > long [2]. > > In fairness to the IESG, "Has each author confirmed..." doesn't > require that the document shepherd or WG Chair ask the question > in any particular way. Especially if I knew that some authors > might be uncomfortable being, in Glen's words, treated as > 8-year-old children, I think I would ask the question in
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meetingof the IETF
Why not provide a list of the potential problem topics to the Chinese government (maybe via MIIT or SAC) and say that the IETF does have open discussions in these areas, hence provided they accept this then IETF would be delighted to have the opportunity to meet in Beijing. If China is not willing to allow IETF to have the same level of open discussion that other countries would - then reconsider the venue. IMHO China is an excellent country to visit however IETF should select meeting locations that allow open discussion within the normal agenda/ topics Alan On 9/24/09 10:57 AM, "Olafur Gudmundsson" wrote: > At 23:45 23/09/2009, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> IAOC, >> >> I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The >> Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies >> of more than one country have come up in geopriv meetings in very >> derogatory terms. There have been very derogatory comments made by >> people about the US's wiretap policy. Unless someone can point me at >> specifics of what is or is not OK, I would find this very concerning. > > > Anything we think is a speculation, the ways of governments and > hotels have their own logic that may not make sense to technical people. > > As for restrictions on topics that border technical and political sphere, > there are different restrictions in different countries. > > I propose an experiment, lets have a meeting if it gets shut down > we will never return to China. > > Olafur > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
