[CC'd to the main IETF list] [Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent position. I took my position pragmatically on the basis that the IETF should consider patented technology intelligently on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure participation by pro-patent groups and organizations whose cooperation is necessary and beneficial to the IETF. This is a pragmatic and reasonable view; The IETF interests in patented technology are different from my ideological interests in abolishing software patents, even if those interests have broad support. Interoperable standards are more important than ideology. Placing interoperation ahead of ideological interests, I saw the value in having participation and cooperation on standards regardless of ideological differences. However, having persuaded people to take a pragmatic and cooperative view, pro-patent persons shouldn't try to exploit that cooperation by attempting to prevent or suppress consideration of IPR issues by working groups.] The statement of the WG chair (included below) is not consistent with the IETF rules on IPR disclosure and consideration. For your reference: RFC 3979: 6.1.1. A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 6. This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably be submitted. An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure. Contributors must disclose IPR meeting the description in this section; there are no exceptions to this rule. The fact that a discussion may be legal in nature is of no relevance. We live in a professional world bounded by legal constraints. The working group must ensure that IETF requirements on IPR disclosure are met, and that IPR encumbrances are properly and fully considered by the working group participants in the selection of technology. Patent encumbrance is a valid basis for comparison of any proposal. And IPR encumbrance is in fact not limited mere comparison, but even whether to adopt a given technology at all; Rejection because of IPR encumbrance is a valid option to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I do not see that the WG Chair is allowed by IETF policy to exclude or suppress information or discussion about IPR encumbrance, which seems to be the purpose of suppressing this discussion. This is contrary to IETF policy, which is to have each WG intelligently consider IPR issues. Also, the WG chair makes mention of two documents. In fact, there are 3 documents noted in the minutes which seem to have IPR encumbrances: Two are reported in the minutes under the heading of "IPR Issues update". These two have IPR statements, but the IPR encumbrances have not been discussed or considered on list. draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-00 and draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00 However, the IPR section of the minutes has an ominous quote about these two: "There is a license available that is royalty free, but does have some terms. So implementors either don't know what to do or are ignoring it." Clearly, more discussion should be stimulated. It should also be worthwhile for the WG to search for and consider alternatives that aren't patent encumbered. This issue should be discussed, not ignored or suppressed as a "rat-hole". This "rat-hole" nonsense is just a cover for a submarine, pro-patent attempt to avoid discussion of the IPR issues in these documents, and perhaps avoiding the possibility of a patent-free alternative. But I am also concerned about a third document that is also mentioned in the minutes. draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07 This document does not have an IPR disclosure on the IETF IPR page. The minutes state: First something about draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07: There have been some questions in the past about patents, but as far as is known, these only cover specific implementations, not on the basic theory or scheme of it, perhaps on specific equations. As the President of the League for Programming Freedom, and a leader on the topics of Patent, Copyright, and Trademark law, I do not find this explanation of non-infringement to be credible. An IPR disclosure should be made on this document. According to RFC 3979, Section 6.1.1 "there are no exceptions to this rule". Further, the IETF is not to take any position on the validity of an IPR claim. The IETF can't ignore the claim as being invalid--that would be taking a position on its validity. The claim has to be documented and disclosed, even if it may not be valid. And also, the working group chairs should be directed to _encourage_ discussion and consideration of the IPR issues, not try to suppress the discussion. Note RFC 3979 Section 6.2: 6.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to have as much information as they can while they are evaluating alternative solutions. If the WG chairs are working to suppress IPR information and discussion, it is not available for evaluation, in violation of the purpose of section 6.2. Dean Anderson President of the League for Programming Freedom. On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > "Rat Hole Alert" [*] > > Please stop this discussion. > > For this working group the only relevance at this point is rough > consensus on the technical specification and running code. We have > neither at this point in time. > > Lets get back to the technical task at hand. Compare the two proposals. > > - --Olaf > > > [*] http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/ > msg00381.html > > > We want to issue is a "rat hole" alert: > > Working groups tend to discuss the validity of patent claims, the > > licensing terms and such at great lengths. In the end patent issues > > are not technical but legal issues. It is up to the implementors of > > technology under IPR to deal with these issues, not the working group. > > If the IPR prohibits implementation than the WG would like to know, > > from implementors. As rough consensus without running code does not > > make sense. > > > > Or to paraphrase the above: we all have an opinion on IPR, this > > is not the list to rehash those. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) > Comment: This message is locally signed. > > iD8DBQFDH0yntN/ca3YJIocRAsn8AKCk1l4ZqCW/OenPsgcFWGUBWC42HQCgujeK > jWRDXuu83+1FIWVP96Mzi4g= > =9z4g > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/> > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf