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:paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:43 AM > To: Simon Josefsson > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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 <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf