Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On Monday, 22 October, 2007 21:57 +0200 Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute ISO/IEC JTC1 or IEEE (at least in the computer and communications areas for both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The IETF is not particularly special in this regard. But the IETF seems to be singled out, in Larry's recent notes and elsewhere, as the one body that needs to treat these things differently. I can't speak for Larry, but maybe the reason for his focusing on IETF is our culture of agreeing on how things should be done and then (generally) acting accordingly? By contrast e.g. ISO/IEC JTC1 is not following its own policy on patents in any consistent way. I agree. There are very good reasons to insist in all fora where standards for protocols and data formats are developed that such standards must not be patent-encumbered. But I see no evidence, at least in the ISO-level correspondence that I follow, that they are being pursued with equal persistence anywhere else. I suspect that is because the Member Bodies refuse to keep taking the question up over and over again I've spoken not too long ago with the official of the Swiss Association for Standardization (our country's Member Body of ISO) who is responsible for that kind of thing, and he said that when there's a clear example of a patent-encombered standard of some significance that gets approved at the ISO/IEC JTC1 level, he's willing to have Switzerland initiate an appeal against that decision on the basis of patented standards being harmful to international commerce. He expressed confidence that we would win that appeal. However the economic importance of insisting that standards must not be patent-encumbered is increasing. Therefore the decisions of the past can not validly be accepted as strong arguments against Larry's current initiative. First, no persuasive evidence has been produced on this list that this economic importance is, in fact, increasing. Ok, I'll write up an argument in support of my above assertion. I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that can be made to go away by the payment of money are less complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? I would recommend that in order to be considered acceptable, implementation in GPL'd free software as well as implementation in proprietary closed-source software must both be allowed by the licensing terms of any patents. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUGhttp://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that can be made to go away by the payment of money are less complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? I would recommend that in order to be considered acceptable, implementation in GPL'd free software as well as implementation in proprietary closed-source software must both be allowed by the licensing terms of any patents. I think that is a good recommendation, and I support it. I would even consider a requirement that in order to move beyond Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free implementation available. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
On 22 Oct 2007 at 17:46 -0400, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote: * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion. I agree that his current version would not fly. However I do think there are working groups that could make conclusions about their patent policies and for which doing so would have helped the effort a lot. Working Groups have the freedom to do that if they wish. I don't want a simplistic edict from on high that all working groups must do so. Interactions between issues, technical and otherwise, are way too varied and potentially complicated for such shallow rule-making. Working through draft-housley-tls-authz-extns gave me a personal significant lack of confidence in our patent policies and whether they meet our goals and objectives. I also wonder whether our goals and objectives may have shifted somewhat since they were written. However I'm definitely uncomfortable with relying on our existing documents in any real dispute. I think the problem is that because we have a wide range of opinion and desired outcome, we cannot create simple rules, which means the difficult cases take a lot of discussion. I think that's important to preserve, in order to support the possibility of new outcomes. swb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Scott == Scott Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scott On 22 Oct 2007 at 17:46 -0400, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote: * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion. I agree that his current version would not fly. However I do think there are working groups that could make conclusions about their patent policies and for which doing so would have helped the effort a lot. Scott Working Groups have the freedom to do that if they wish. I Scott don't want a simplistic edict from on high that all working Scott groups must do so. Interactions between issues, technical Scott and otherwise, are way too varied and potentially Scott complicated for such shallow rule-making. I agree that forcing working groups to make a decision at the beginning would be bad. I think the you must decide part of Phil's proposal is one of the things that would have to go. Phil may argue that's the only value his proposal has; I disagree. Working through draft-housley-tls-authz-extns gave me a personal significant lack of confidence in our patent policies and whether they meet our goals and objectives. I also wonder whether our goals and objectives may have shifted somewhat since they were written. However I'm definitely uncomfortable with relying on our existing documents in any real dispute. Scott I think the problem is that because we have a wide range of Scott opinion and desired outcome, we cannot create simple rules, Scott which means the difficult cases take a lot of discussion. Scott I think that's important to preserve, in order to support Scott the possibility of new outcomes. My lack of confidence had more to do with doubting that our policies would do what we want in court, concerns that there are ambiguities, lack of clarity and that sort of thing than that they allowed for discussion. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that can be made to go away by the payment of money are less complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? I would recommend that in order to be considered acceptable, implementation in GPL'd free software as well as implementation in proprietary closed-source software must both be allowed by the licensing terms of any patents. Simon I think that is a good recommendation, and I support it. Simon I would even consider a requirement that in order to move Simon beyond Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free Simon implementation available. I'd love to get there, but I think building that consensus today would be a non-starter. Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal. Try to build a consensus that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, it needs to be possible to write an open-source implementation of a standard and that the absence of such an implementation should be considered a red flag when advancing beyond proposed. Basically I'd like to start by getting to a point where we assume that open-source implementations are a goal and that we explicitly decide that they are not a requirement in contexts where that makes sense. I suspect we would run into resistance building that consensus but it might be worth trying. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 3:06 PM -0400 10/23/07, Sam Hartman wrote: Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal. Try to build a consensus that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, it needs to be possible to write an open-source implementation of a standard and that the absence of such an implementation should be considered a red flag when advancing beyond proposed. I think you have to be careful here, as open-source covers a variety of licenses. Having a diverse set of implementations is clearly a good sign that a standard's specification is clear enough to implement and useful enough that folks have chosen to spend the time. Those ought to be critical aspects of our thinking when we look at how to revive the standards track's upper reaches. But reviving it will get more difficult, in my opinion, if we set tests like must show at least one implementation subject to the GPL, as that presumes which implementation groups are interested, or delays forward progress until a group that does not work in that mode produces an example implementation that meets the test. Even if this is an informal requirement (lore vs. spec.), this could discourage those working for advancement. Basically I'd like to start by getting to a point where we assume that open-source implementations are a goal and that we explicitly decide that they are not a requirement in contexts where that makes sense. I suspect we would run into resistance building that consensus but it might be worth trying. I'm a little confused as to the antecedent of we in the statement above. I assume you mean you and Simon, but that you are basically speaking for yourself. If you mean we in some other sense (especially if you mean it to include the IESG, which some might infer from your role), it is not clear. Speaking only for myself, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ted At 3:06 PM -0400 10/23/07, Sam Hartman wrote: Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal. Try to build a consensus that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, it needs to be possible to write an open-source implementation of a standard and that the absence of such an implementation should be considered a red flag when advancing beyond proposed. Ted I think you have to be careful here, as open-source covers Ted a variety of licenses. Having a diverse set of Ted implementations is clearly a good sign that a standard's Ted specification is clear enough to implement and useful enough Ted that folks have chosen to spend the time. Those ought to be Ted critical aspects of our thinking when we look at how to Ted revive the standards track's upper reaches. But reviving it Ted will get more difficult, in my opinion, if we set tests like Ted must show at least one implementation subject to the GPL, Ted as that presumes which implementation groups are interested, Ted or delays forward progress until a group that does not work Ted in that mode produces an example implementation that meets Ted the test. Even if this is an informal requirement (lore Ted vs. spec.), this could discourage those working for Ted advancement. my assumption is that our standards that are useful tend to be useful in open-source environments. And that people should at least stop and think if there is not an OS implementation of a standard. We might find a few areas (MPLS and CCAMP spring to mind) where it is quite clear that no such desire to implement exists even though there are significant other implementations. And that we'd want to think about why there was no OS implementation if it happened there was none. By think about I mean provide some explanation for and consider whether there is a deeper problem. Basically I'd like to start by getting to a point where we assume that open-source implementations are a goal and that we explicitly decide that they are not a requirement in contexts where that makes sense. I suspect we would run into resistance building that consensus but it might be worth trying. Ted I'm a little confused as to the antecedent of we in the Ted statement above. I assume you mean you and Simon, but that Ted you are basically speaking for yourself. If you mean we in Ted some other sense (especially if you mean it to include the Ted IESG, which some might infer from your role), it is not Ted clear. We == those interested in this idea. I'm sorry that I failed to make it clear I'm speaking only for myself and especially not for the IESG. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 4:35 PM -0400 10/23/07, Sam Hartman wrote: my assumption is that our standards that are useful tend to be useful in open-source environments. And that people should at least stop and think if there is not an OS implementation of a standard. We might find a few areas (MPLS and CCAMP spring to mind) where it is quite clear that no such desire to implement exists even though there are significant other implementations. Interestingly, I was also thinking of CCAMP and MPLS when I was coming up with examples. There may well be others, though, where the open-source implementations have a comparatively small impact on the actual deployments even though they clearly exist; BGP, for example, might fit into that category. The bigger point, though, is that there are now and likely will be in the future some technologies that are worth IETF time and effort even if they don't appeal to the open source community as projects (or even if the open source community projects will have little deployment). We == those interested in this idea. I'm sorry that I failed to make it clear I'm speaking only for myself and especially not for the IESG. --Sam Thank you for your clarification. I, as well, am speaking only for myself. regards, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
--On Saturday, 20 October, 2007 19:15 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and countries around the world. These specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to facilitate communications among us all. ... Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute ISO/IEC JTC1 or IEEE (at least in the computer and communications areas for both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The IETF is not particularly special in this regard. To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist on an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has decided, repeatedly, that the answer is no and we want to look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the tradeoffs. While the part that follows the no differs, that is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and others. If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard, repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus on a change in position. Just my opinion, of course. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and countries around the world. These specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to facilitate communications among us all. ... Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute ISO/IEC JTC1 or IEEE (at least in the computer and communications areas for both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The IETF is not particularly special in this regard. I agree. There are very good reasons to insist in all fora where standards for protocols and data formats are developed that such standards must not be patent-encumbered. To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist on an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has decided, repeatedly, that the answer is no and we want to look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the tradeoffs. While the part that follows the no differs, that is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and others. However the economic importance of insisting that standards must not be patent-encumbered is increasing. Therefore the decisions of the past can not validly be accepted as strong arguments against Larry's current initiative. If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard, repeatedly, before. Do you have a list of the arguments that you have heard so often already that you're not interested in hearing them again? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUGhttp://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
John Klensin wrote: If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard, repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus on a change in position. John and others, I have never made my proposal on ietf@ietf.org before. Indeed, I only started contributing on this list recently. I'm pleased that YOU have heard my arguments before in other venues, but there's no reason to assume that others here have done so. I don't assume that IETF agrees with my goals or priorities, nor perhaps do you have any reason to assume that the broader IETF community agrees with you. I made my suggestion here to re-charter the IPR-WG after lurking on the list for long enough to understand (I hope) the issues that this list considers and the cultural environment in which those considerations occur, and long after I became convinced that at least some of the people participating on the much narrower IPR-WG list were culturally and philosophically unwilling to listen to *any* arguments that IETF patent policy should be clarified or changed. Your reference to the older and more stubbornly traditional ISO, IEC and IEEE merely reminds me of important counter-examples, W3C and OASIS. Each standards organization needs to articulate its patent policy in light of its own mission and culture. IETF is a world-wide organization of volunteers that standardizes much of the Internet. This is an *open* Internet, available to all. Encumbering it with non-free patents is a danger that W3C and OASIS have addressed. I suggest that IETF should address it too! So please stand back a bit, John, and let the arguments on all sides be fairly raised and rebutted before the participants on this list. Let's see if consensus does arise here. Please don't assume, as I don't assume, that everyone who has an opinion has already spoken up. I hope that others here will speak up. *** Once again, specifically what I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. *** -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls- authz-extns] --On Saturday, 20 October, 2007 19:15 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and countries around the world. These specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to facilitate communications among us all. ... Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute ISO/IEC JTC1 or IEEE (at least in the computer and communications areas for both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The IETF is not particularly special in this regard. To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist on an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has decided, repeatedly, that the answer is no and we want to look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the tradeoffs. While the part that follows the no differs, that is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and others. If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard, repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus on a change in position. Just my opinion, of course. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
--On Monday, 22 October, 2007 21:57 +0200 Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and countries around the world. These specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to facilitate communications among us all. ... Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute ISO/IEC JTC1 or IEEE (at least in the computer and communications areas for both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The IETF is not particularly special in this regard. But the IETF seems to be singled out, in Larry's recent notes and elsewhere, as the one body that needs to treat these things differently. I agree. There are very good reasons to insist in all fora where standards for protocols and data formats are developed that such standards must not be patent-encumbered. But I see no evidence, at least in the ISO-level correspondence that I follow, that they are being pursued with equal persistence anywhere else. I suspect that is because the Member Bodies refuse to keep taking the question up over and over again, and that, if the IETF had procedures similar or equivalent to theirs, we would not be hearing about it again on this list. To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist on an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has decided, repeatedly, that the answer is no and we want to look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the tradeoffs. While the part that follows the no differs, that is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and others. However the economic importance of insisting that standards must not be patent-encumbered is increasing. Therefore the decisions of the past can not validly be accepted as strong arguments against Larry's current initiative. First, no persuasive evidence has been produced on this list that this economic importance is, in fact, increasing. The economic importance may well be increasing for some categories of encumbrances, or for some categories of implementations but I don't believe a statement this broad can be justified. Second, while such increasing importance, were it to exist, would justify a review of the policies, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that Larry (and presumably you) support. In addition, the past isn't a long time here. The IETF policies were not established a decade or two ago and never reviewed since: the question has been raised over and over again as to whether the IETF, or various WGs, want to review the policies, and the answer comes back no. So, even if the economic importance has increased as you suggest, or other arguments for unencumbered software exist, how often do you think that requires review of the policies? Once every few years? Once a year? Once a month? Once every two weeks until you get your way and then never again?There comes a point beyond which the raising of this position is a DoS attack on the IETF's getting other work done. I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that can be made to go away by the payment of money are less complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard, repeatedly, before. Do you have a list of the arguments that you have heard so often already that you're not interested in hearing them again? I have seen nothing new in any of Larry's postings, or Simon's postings, or other postings supporting their general positions, in the last two months, so perhaps you could use that list as a starting point. best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
For what it's worth, I'd like to write in general support of re-evaluating several aspects of our patent policy. I 'm not quite writing in support of rechartering IPR at this time. First, I think they have critical copyright work to finish. Second, I think that we need to find a way to have the discussion in a productive forum. I'm not entirely sure a rechartered IPR working group would do that. Here are some examples of questions I think it might be desirable to consider: * Establishing a clear category for some sort of open-source-compatible licensing terms. We seem to think that royalty-free is good enough in our current policy, but that is demonstrably false. * Evaluating whether our IPR policies are adequate to actually provide enforcement when people violate them. What recourse do we have when people violate our policies; what recourse do users of our specs have? Is this sufficient for our needs? If we had different policies how much better would things be? * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion. I agree that his current version would not fly. However I do think there are working groups that could make conclusions about their patent policies and for which doing so would have helped the effort a lot. I think sacred and dnsext are such working groups. I think you could get consensus in krb-wg that patented technology is problematic in our standards. However I'm not sure it would be useful as I don't think it would save much time. I think considering whether there are aspects of Phil's proposals it would be useful to adopt might be useful. Working through draft-housley-tls-authz-extns gave me a personal significant lack of confidence in our patent policies and whether they meet our goals and objectives. I also wonder whether our goals and objectives may have shifted somewhat since they were written. However I'm definitely uncomfortable with relying on our existing documents in any real dispute. In conclusion, I think Larry's proposed rechartering is an appropriate contribution to this list. While we may not ultimately decide to follow his course of action, I think it an appropriate contribution. I do not think he is attempting to DOS the process and believe he is participating in good faith. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
I'm confused by this part of the discussion. How can a standard be encumbered by GPL? As far as I know, GPL does not prevent anyone from implementing a standard without any restrictions or fees, just possibly from using somebody else's code under certain conditions. I don't think that anybody is proposing that all implementations should be free, in whatever sense of the word, just that free implementations can exist. Thus, I consider this somewhat of a diversion. Henning On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Monday 22 October 2007 16:27, John C Klensin wrote: I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that can be made to go away by the payment of money are less complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? That sounds reasonable to me. To promote global interoperability, standards need to be implementable throughout the internet ecosystem, both Free and Proprietary. Scott K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
On 2007-10-23 16:20, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: I'm confused by this part of the discussion. How can a standard be encumbered by GPL? As far as I know, GPL does not prevent anyone from implementing a standard without any restrictions or fees, just possibly from using somebody else's code under certain conditions. There's certainly a tricky point if code embedded in a standard is explicitly subject to the GPL; that makes it effectively impossible for a commercial implementor to use even fragments of that code in a proprietary way. I don't think that anybody is proposing that all implementations should be free, in whatever sense of the word, just that free implementations can exist. Thus, I consider this somewhat of a diversion. Well, there's an inverse claim that some of the IETF's current rules make it impossible to use material extracted from RFCs in open source under certain OS licenses. But I agree that these copyright issues are distinct from patent issues. The latter concern whether an implementor can put code under a given OS license at all, depending on the exact form of patent licence available. Not all OS licenses have this problem, however. Brian Henning On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Monday 22 October 2007 16:27, John C Klensin wrote: I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that can be made to go away by the payment of money are less complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? That sounds reasonable to me. To promote global interoperability, standards need to be implementable throughout the internet ecosystem, both Free and Proprietary. Scott K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Different era. Today we have had several companies burnes for up to half a billion dollars with piffle patents. When tcpip was being written the patent office had not become a profit center, the seven nos were still an issue. Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:26 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: Ted Hardie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge Subject:Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns] Phill, If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying. Most of them, and those in Armonk that I used to work for, bought Section 10 of RFC 2026 and its successors. Certainly, open source was less of a factor when that regime was designed, but Linux still supports TCP/IP as far as I know. So I think the experimental evidence supports the arguments you're hearing from me, Ted and others. Don't confuse that with a liking for standards encumbered by patents with expensive licensing conditions. It's simply a matter of finding a pragmatic compromise in a world where software patents are granted, and often upheld by the courts, so that the goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Brian Carpenter wrote: ... so that the goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic. ... But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and For 'free' ??? I expect you'll find that that for the majority of IETF partcipants, participation is part of what they do for their employers. Meeting fees and expenses are re-imbursed, etc. That is merely informed self interest. countries around the world. These specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to facilitate communications among us all. None of us want patent surprises when we implement IETF specifications. Everyone expects IETF to take reasonable steps, consistent with its fundamental technical mission, to de-mine the patent landscape so that anyone can implement our worldwide specifications in products of all types. Actually, there is GREAT value in having a widely used protocol well documented, even if it is encumbered by IPR restrictions. I personally have no objection to having the IETF publish RFCs which depend in whole or part on encumbered technologies as long as those restrictions are documented in the RFC. As a matter of courtesy, the existance of such encumberances should be revealed when known to an individual associated with the process of submitting the information to any group associated with the IETF. We need to be careful however to make any IPR decisions based the merits of the technical issues and NOT based on our frustration that notification wasn't timely. I consider it a given that the best the IETF can achieve is to recognize IPR known to participants in the IETF process. Given the nature of patent and copyright processes, there is no way to insure that a seemingly new idea conceived by an IETF working group isn't already encumbered. It is my observation that the IETF tends to operate in two modes: a. Documenting or revising the documentation of existing protocols b. Designing protocols (or improvements) to solve previously unresolved problems In mode 'a', documenation may be independant submissions as well as organized activities of the IETF community. To publish an independant submission requires some attention from the community, the RFC editor, etc. The question is whether publication will contribute to the community. Knowning how a totally encumbered protocol works, may facilitate the design of related protocols or simply help network engineers keep their portion of the Internet operational. If so, the publication effort is probably justified. The remaining mode 'a' activity, as the organized work product of the IETF, likely a WG, should have IPR handled as in mode 'b'. The addition of IPR encumbered technology to a protocol should be a decision based on technical merits. It makes no sense to determine before specific technology has been identified for consideration that encumbered technology can't be considered. I have seen enough disagreements within the IETF as to what is the best technology that I know that comparison of techologies won't be easy when there is no known encumberance. But I would hope that a good technical design will prevale. In the end, the Internet wide operating cost associated with using less than optimal technology shouldn't exceed the expected costs associated with use of encumbered technology. It should be clear that all known encumberances MUST be documented in an RFC which utilizes the technology. A participant in the IETF process should never bring technology to the IETF they know or believe to be encumbered without revealing those encumberances. Furthermore, they should never advocate adoption of technology from which they will directly or indirectly benefit in come tangible way. If an individual is aware of technology encumberances which they can't reveal, they should drop out of the related working groups or other IETF organized discussions. It really isn't socially acceptable to entrap IETF participants with enticing techology whose encumberances aren't revealed. David Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Phill, If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying. Most of them, and those in Armonk that I used to work for, bought Section 10 of RFC 2026 and its successors. Certainly, open source was less of a factor when that regime was designed, but Linux still supports TCP/IP as far as I know. So I think the experimental evidence supports the arguments you're hearing from me, Ted and others. Don't confuse that with a liking for standards encumbered by patents with expensive licensing conditions. It's simply a matter of finding a pragmatic compromise in a world where software patents are granted, and often upheld by the courts, so that the goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Brian Carpenter wrote: ... so that the goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic. That's almost certainly true. The world is full of encumbered standards, including in products I buy and use every day. I agree with you that THAT goal is unrealistic. No Don Quixote here! In fact, most IP attorneys like me support the freedom of individuals and companies to seek patents on their inventive technology and to profit - alone or in legal combination with their business partners - with products that implement those patents. But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and countries around the world. These specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to facilitate communications among us all. None of us want patent surprises when we implement IETF specifications. Everyone expects IETF to take reasonable steps, consistent with its fundamental technical mission, to de-mine the patent landscape so that anyone can implement our worldwide specifications in products of all types. I'm not proposing unrealistic goals, but instead proposing this more limited IETF-centric goal of free standards for IETF specifications. That is why I suggested that as a charter for the IPR-WG to review and propose how to make it happen here. As for those other non-IETF patent-encumbered standards: They can probably survive without IETF's free help. /Larry -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:27 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: Ted Hardie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls- authz-extns] Phill, If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying. Most of them, and those in Armonk that I used to work for, bought Section 10 of RFC 2026 and its successors. Certainly, open source was less of a factor when that regime was designed, but Linux still supports TCP/IP as far as I know. So I think the experimental evidence supports the arguments you're hearing from me, Ted and others. Don't confuse that with a liking for standards encumbered by patents with expensive licensing conditions. It's simply a matter of finding a pragmatic compromise in a world where software patents are granted, and often upheld by the courts, so that the goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it. Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC 4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known Intellectual Property Encumbrance'. And is the text you quote specific to all DNS technology? Or just that one that is the subject of the document you cite? (To be clear, it is the latter.) The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is fairly strong. Yes, but the discussion still works best on a technology-by-technology basis, not on the broad all DNS technology swath that would be implied if the decision had to be made at WG formation time. Thomas ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 1:58 PM -0700 10/19/07, Ted Hardie wrote: Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed both open source and proprietary implementations. My apologies for the major typo. I meant don't seem to have prevented. Sorry for the goof, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 3:45 PM -0700 10/19/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Ted Hardie wrote: Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency. You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result I'm arguing for to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine fairly what it will take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for IETF, only propose one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed. What you seem to be missing is a step where the WG agrees that this is the goal. The steps we've taken in the past are: Check to see if we have agreement to open the current policies for change. If we have that agreement, develop proposals for what that change would be. Agree on the set of changes in broad scope. Write documents that set out the new policies. Get community consensus on the documents which lay out the changes and the resulting policies. You don't have step one done yet, and you are jumping to the end of 3, where you are pre-supposing what the result of the agreed set of changes would be. By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that particular IPR-WG. You previously argued in committee that the current IETF patent policy is NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every counter-proposal we made as off-charter! I'm not sure what you mean by in committee above. I have certainly made comments on the IPR working group mailing list. It has open archives, and I encourage folks who are considering opening up the charter to consider changes to it actually read them, along with the documents it has produced. I also note above the nice shift in subject, from you previously argued to in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried. Let me rephrase this: After discussion that included comments by you (Ted Hardie), the IPR working group came to consensus not to reconsider the patent policy. After that decision, proposals to change it were ruled off charter. I had a heck of lot less to do with it than that makes it appear since I have never chaired the group, written any of its documents, or been its AD; I have my opinions, but I never buried anything. So let's play the charter game fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's run the charter process fairly indeed. We can start by not pretending it's a win/loss game, and agree that it is a process of getting the community to agree on what work it is willing to take on, without artificially starting with a specific goal that presupposes an agreement that has not been demonstrated. Have a lovely weekend Larry, Ted /Larry Rosen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
The question is whether in the light of the SCO vs IBM case the reciprocity clauses actually have the intended effect. Having been involved in the license issues surrounding WS-* I do not beleive that it is possible to construct an open license that is compatible with open source practices and is reliably effective in preventing litigation from parties that are using the technology without reciprocation. Fortunately it turns out that this is not a requirement. Open Source projects do not want a license, and the IPR holder don't actually want to have to issue one. All that everyone wants in this is to not get sued. So the Microsoft Open Promise type approach is definitely the one that we should be looking to adopt going forward. What would be useful is if we had a small number of standard legal deeds/licenses/contracts/whatever released under a creative commons type license for this type of arrangement. If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying. From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 19/10/2007 5:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Cc: 'Contreras, Jorge' Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns] At 1:58 PM -0700 10/19/07, Ted Hardie wrote: Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed both open source and proprietary implementations. My apologies for the major typo. I meant don't seem to have prevented. Sorry for the goof, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Actually, I saw the quesiton of whether the charter should be extended into re-visiting the patent rules fairly discussed in the working group. (Which is the usual place to decide if we even want to do the work.) You were aware of and involved in the discussion. The rough consensus of the working group was that there was not a need to revisit the existing IETF patent policy. So the chairs did not ask the IESG to consider making such a change. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 06:45 PM 10/19/2007, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Ted Hardie wrote: Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency. You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result I'm arguing for to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine fairly what it will take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for IETF, only propose one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed. By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that particular IPR-WG. You previously argued in committee that the current IETF patent policy is NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every counter-proposal we made as off-charter! So let's play the charter game fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's charter the IPR-WG to develop a proposal that achieves a specific goal to fix a perceived patent problem. You can always argue against it in committee or vote against it if a serious proposal toward that goal gets before the IETF as a whole. /Larry Rosen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
I DO want IETF to adopt policies concerning the disclosure of patents when known by WG participants, and the mandatory licensing of those patents for free by those patent owners who actually participate in and contribute to a specification, or alternatively the withdrawal of that specification as an IETF standard. The IETF already has policies about disclosures of patents when known by working group participants, as you well know. This sounds like you want the IETF as whole to make this decision prior to any work of a working group, and without any working group consideration of whether the benefits of a licensed technology support its selection for a particular context. Otherwise, to speak freely here, patent-encumbered specifications that we waste our time creating are useless for open source and many proprietary implementations. waste our time is a pretty loaded phrase. open source also covers a wide variety of licenses, and it's only when the open source developer actually sees the patent and the offered license that this determination can be made. Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed both open source and proprietary implementations. Yet they clearly are encumbered. Patent-encumbered specification that *we choose to develop with the knowledge of those patents* may be in the best interests of the Internet, at least as well as an open process can determine.We'll never have perfect knowledge, obviously, as someone not participating may end up claiming patent coverage. But ruling it out without letting a working group balance technology and license is worse than where we are now, at least in my view. But I go beyond where we are already. The policy we need should not be debated here yet. This is too big a list for that discussion. Funny, you objected that it should be here the last time I suggested that the IPR working group list was the best place for this discussion. You said it was strangled in committee the last time the community debated it there. What I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency. That's a simple charter for the IPR-WG. Not so simple perhaps to guarantee consensus even on definitions, and perhaps it won't result in a single formal proposal, but it needs to be addressed. The IPR-WG is an appropriate place for that activity. If you want to argue for a change in the charter of the IPR working group, you can certainly do it on that list. But, please, do realize you have to get the community to agree on the charter goals first. No one in the IETF, including the IESG, has the right to change the goals of a working group without community input and agreement. The ability to review and comment on that kind of thing is something a lot of people value around here. Speaking only for myself, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 07:21:55PM -0700, Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 35 lines which said: Could you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable? MARID, certainly. Yes, there are a few engineers in the IETF who like to play armchair lawyer and would love to spend the initial time of WG formation pontificating about IPR, but they are in the small minority. Such a discussion would be of no interest to the folks who want to do good technical work. You mean that everyone who disagrees with the current IPR policy of IETF is not wanting to do good technical work? And that people genuinely interested in a better IPR policy are just armchair lawyers? Seems quite despising. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Paul Hoffman wrote: Early on is much different than when the WG is formed. It is reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology* when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG. And so, if our reasonable policy is that the IPR desired on IETF's standardized Internet technologies shall ab initio be free (in several senses of the word free to be defined later), then we must deal with patents early on. Like now You probably mean a narrower definition of technology than I intend, which includes *all* of IETF's Internet specifications. I'm after a resolution of IETF policy regarding patent-encumbered IETF specifications wherever they appear, not some rule that requires each WG to look for and compare patents to technology. I never suggested that each WG start or end its standardization process by looking for patents. What a waste that would be! Even the companies that own those patents refuse to take the time to do that before their employees join a WG. I agree with you that IETF should only address specific patents in the context of a specific technology (or set of technologies) when the patent landscape becomes clearer during WG activities. That may happen early on or later, as ideas ferment and as patents become known. Several of you are twisting my recommendations about policy into a threat to the independent creativity of each WG. I DON'T want each WG to worry about patents unless non-free patents actually are discovered. I DO want IETF to adopt policies concerning the disclosure of patents when known by WG participants, and the mandatory licensing of those patents for free by those patent owners who actually participate in and contribute to a specification, or alternatively the withdrawal of that specification as an IETF standard. Otherwise, to speak freely here, patent-encumbered specifications that we waste our time creating are useless for open source and many proprietary implementations. But I go beyond where we are already. The policy we need should not be debated here yet. This is too big a list for that discussion. What I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. That's a simple charter for the IPR-WG. Not so simple perhaps to guarantee consensus even on definitions, and perhaps it won't result in a single formal proposal, but it needs to be addressed. The IPR-WG is an appropriate place for that activity. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:43 AM To: Simon Josefsson Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls- authz-extns] At 10:46 AM +0200 10/19/07, Simon Josefsson wrote: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't implement? I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable? The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it. Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC 4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known Intellectual Property Encumbrance'. This is a good example of how Lawrence's proposal would not have worked. The technology you are talking about came up years after the WG was formed. The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily dismissed. Time could be spent on more productive work. Early on is much different than when the WG is formed. It is reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology* when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
I would expect RAND charters to be issued rarely if at all. I would only expect a RAND charter to issue if there was some overwhelmingly compelling IPR that everyone agreed is simply indispensible. The only case I can remember where this was the case in the past was public key cryptography. The only current area of networking where I see a compelling set of IPR is in the content rights management space, and I don't think the patent issues would be the only barrier to working on that problem in the IETF. We already have a notice requirement. I would certainly like to see Note Well being made much more prominent, in particular I think that there should be mandatory Note Well notices presented in the registration process for every IETF WG mailing list. I would also like to see all lists managed by the IETF directly and a comprehensive archive kept with digitally notorized records of all subscriptions, posts, unsubscriptions, drafts, etc. The only thing that would change here is that when a company does declare IPR it knows that there are only three possible outcomes: 1) The WG works around the IPR claim, either changing the specification to avoid the claim or if the claim is obviouly spurious rejecting it (i.e. if someone claims that their patent on a new method of swinging covers HTTP it can probably be simply noted). 2) The IPR holder makes an irrevocable pledge to grant a RANDZ license to any party implementing the specification that agrees not to enforce its own IPR claims with respect to the specification on the IPR holder. 3) The WG droes not proceed with the work item in question. The only way to proceed at this point is to either charter a new WG under RAND terms, to submit the work as a personal submission on RAND terms, to proceed in another venue with different IPR terms or to not proceed at all. There is absolutely no change in the preconditions. Note Well applies today and will under the new rules. The only difference is that we have eliminated a fourth option that exists today: 4) Argue for the work continuing in the WG on terms that are not RANDZ, are not compatible with open source licensing, commercial use, contain viral poison pills, or otherwise objectionable. The decision of which of the three outcomes to choose cannot be made till the end of the process for the simple reason that we don't know what the spec will be like until then. A concern of mine is always the last minute change that pushes a spec into IPR hell. I have very rarely seen IPR issues with the core of a standards based protocol. If you have a strong hold on the IPR then the topic has to be pretty huge to make the overhead of standards work worthwhile. If you have cast iron IPR and a compelling value proposition you can set the standards yourself unilaterally. And why should the rest of the community give their time to create the technology if thewy are going to pass through your toll booth? What is much more common is the optional extension that is patent encumbered. I have a few patent applications of that type. But I don't go smurfing them here or anywhere else. From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 18/10/2007 6:12 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Simon Josefsson; ietf@ietf.org; Tim Polk Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns] On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on W3C terms or that the working group specifies at the outset that RAND terms are acceptable. Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe that is much better than constraining participation at the beginning. +1 Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of the information you need to make a decision. You will still be able to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 10:46 AM +0200 10/19/07, Simon Josefsson wrote: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't implement? I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable? The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it. Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC 4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known Intellectual Property Encumbrance'. This is a good example of how Lawrence's proposal would not have worked. The technology you are talking about came up years after the WG was formed. The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily dismissed. Time could be spent on more productive work. Early on is much different than when the WG is formed. It is reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology* when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't implement? I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable? The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it. Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC 4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known Intellectual Property Encumbrance'. The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily dismissed. Time could be spent on more productive work. I think there are other examples, e.g., SRP in SASL WG. Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit free discussion of initial ideas? Please don't raise silly arguments like that. It is not a silly argument. Yes, there are a few engineers in the IETF who like to play armchair lawyer and would love to spend the initial time of WG formation pontificating about IPR, but they are in the small minority. Such a discussion would be of no interest to the folks who want to do good technical work. In today's world you can't do good technical work on a commercial basis without considering patents. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Ted Hardie wrote: Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency. You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result I'm arguing for to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine fairly what it will take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for IETF, only propose one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed. By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that particular IPR-WG. You previously argued in committee that the current IETF patent policy is NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every counter-proposal we made as off-charter! So let's play the charter game fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's charter the IPR-WG to develop a proposal that achieves a specific goal to fix a perceived patent problem. You can always argue against it in committee or vote against it if a serious proposal toward that goal gets before the IETF as a whole. /Larry Rosen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 8:42 AM -0700 10/19/07, Paul Hoffman wrote: The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily dismissed. Time could be spent on more productive work. Early on is much different than when the WG is formed. It is reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology* when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG. I think this is a critical point. The IETF has historically decided whether to deal with licenses when it is faced with a specific technology. That has the real advantage that the contributors can consider the trade-offs (way X is known to be encumbered, with a license required; way Y is not known to be encumbered, but involves new code paths that will likely be slower). For some working groups, we start out with a technology under consideration and early on in discussion of a technology and when the working group starts may be pretty similar from the point of view of considering that trade-off. For other working groups (DNSEXT is one example, DHC is another), the long-lived nature of their charters and the continual emergence of newly related technologies means that early on in discussion of a technology may be years later than when the working group starts. Speaking personally, I believe the ability to consider that trade-off is a very good thing, and I would hate to lose it. I also think that making that decision in the working group is the best way, despite it being very messy in many cases, because we get the strongest participation from the community of developers and deployers there. regards, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't implement? I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable? My experience has been that IPR issues are much, much more common for work that appears later in a WG's deliverables, not in the initial work. Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit free discussion of initial ideas? Please don't raise silly arguments like that. It is not a silly argument. Yes, there are a few engineers in the IETF who like to play armchair lawyer and would love to spend the initial time of WG formation pontificating about IPR, but they are in the small minority. Such a discussion would be of no interest to the folks who want to do good technical work. Among the most exciting discussions of ideas are those that come from having to design around a patent that isn't available for free. Your view of excitement might differ from the large majority of active IETFers. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
On 2007-10-19 12:10, Lawrence Rosen wrote: [I stripped cc's from this reply] Brian Carpenter wrote: Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe that is much better than constraining participation at the beginning. Scott Brim responded: +1 Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of the information you need to make a decision. You will still be able to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out. Strong -1 to Brian's and Scott's comments. Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't implement? Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit free discussion of initial ideas? If you work for a large company with a managed approach to innovation and IPR handling, you simply aren't allowed to discuss freely in an SDO unless the SDO's IPR regime has been approved by the company. If you have a different IPR regime for every WG, the stage that in the current IETF is a wide and open discussion (including a BOF), when innovative ideas are put on the table, would be replaced by a careful dance among elephants about hypothetical IPR covering hypothetical technology. That does indeed inhibit free discussion of technical ideas. I don't think we want that, which is why I believe the IETF's IPR regime is just fine as it is. Brian Please don't raise silly arguments like that. Among the most exciting discussions of ideas are those that come from having to design around a patent that isn't available for free. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:12 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Simon Josefsson; ietf@ietf.org; Tim Polk Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls- authz-extns] On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on W3C terms or that the working group specifies at the outset that RAND terms are acceptable. Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe that is much better than constraining participation at the beginning. +1 Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of the information you need to make a decision. You will still be able to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
[I stripped cc's from this reply] Brian Carpenter wrote: Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe that is much better than constraining participation at the beginning. Scott Brim responded: +1 Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of the information you need to make a decision. You will still be able to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out. Strong -1 to Brian's and Scott's comments. Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't implement? Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit free discussion of initial ideas? Please don't raise silly arguments like that. Among the most exciting discussions of ideas are those that come from having to design around a patent that isn't available for free. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:12 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Simon Josefsson; ietf@ietf.org; Tim Polk Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls- authz-extns] On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on W3C terms or that the working group specifies at the outset that RAND terms are acceptable. Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe that is much better than constraining participation at the beginning. +1 Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of the information you need to make a decision. You will still be able to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
