Scott,
In the body of this document you say:
j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC
Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026].
RFC2026 states that the drafts are removed from the directory, implying
that after that time they are not available. Whilst that never really
reflected reality, the IETF through its tools system actively makes these
documents available in perpetuity. Given the legal nature of this draft
we ought to properly note the permanent availability of these temporary
documents.
Section 5.3.3 specifically calls out ADs but there are many others who
fall into the same category: the GEN_ART team, the directorates of
other areas such as SEC and OPS, and of course regular contributors that
only read an out of area RFC when they need to use its contents.
If the text is specifically going to call out ADs it ought to also call
out those that help ADs as part of their review process.
The test says:
An IPR disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
published patent applications or indicate that the disclosure is
based on unpublished patent applications. The IPR disclosure must
also list the name(s) of the inventor(s) (with respect to issued
patents and published patent applications) and the specific IETF
Document(s) or activity affected.
In some cases that is simply impractical. For example one might
know that IPR was filed at a previous employer, for example
because you were on the patent review panel, but of course
would no longer have access to the documents to tease out the
exact identity of the patent. All that we can expect by the first
stage discloser, perhaps filing a third party disclosure, is as
much information as they still have available.
In section 7 you state
When adopting new technologies, the participants in an IETF working
group are expected to evaluate all the relevant tradeoffs from their
perspective. Most of the time these considerations are based purely
on technical excellence, but IPR considerations may also affect the
evaluation and specific licensing terms may affect the participants'
opinion on the desirability of adopting a particular technology.
There is a catch 22 problem with this text and later text in the section.
The IPR situation may indeed affect an adoption decision, but the WG
is not allowed to discuss the terms of the licence. In some cases the
terms of an encumbered technology may be just fine, but
contributors making an adoption decision cannot form a view
on this as part of the IETF process. So you can end up with
one partly saying yes because of IPR, another saying no
because of IPR and neither allowed to explain their position as
part of the IETF process.
- Stewart
On 18/01/2017 14:18, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology'
<draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical
proposal as early as possible in the development process. The
policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the
public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR
holders. This memo sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR related
to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the
objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo
replaces section 10 of RFC 2026 and obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
rfc6701: Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy (Informational - IETF stream)
rfc4844: The RFC Series and RFC Editor (Informational - IAB stream)
rfc6401: RSVP Extensions for Admission Priority (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.