Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt Reviewer: Stewart Bryant Review Date: 2017/01/24 IETF LC End Date: In Last Call (ends 2017-02-15) Intended Status: Best Current Practice Summary: Ready with Issues Comments: Given the multitude of issues that surround IPR this is a document that is almost impossible to perfect. I have noted below a number of concerns and consequences that I suggest the RTG ADs consider during their deliberations. Issues I am not sure what classification to give the following comments. 1. Definitions Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and electronic communications, which are addressed to: o the IETF plenary session, o any IETF working group [see BCP 25] or portion thereof, o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof, o any design team [see BCP 25] or portion thereof, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, o any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room or discussion board, operated by or under the auspices of the IETF, including the IETF list itself, o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not Contributions in the context of this document. For example, the presentations made by invited speakers at IETF plenary sessions to discuss advances in Internet technology generally, or to describe their existing products or technologies, are not Contributions. SB> It is interesting that you exclude WG Chairs from the list of SB> officials that you call out, and yet they can be a key player in SB> in deciding whether an encumbered technology progresses or not. SB> SB> Would it not be cleaner to express this in terms of "officials"? ============= e. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing lists, functions and other activities which are organized or initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but solely to the extent of such participation. SB> I think this is a definition of so called "members of the IETF" SB> Certainly the term "IETF" on its own means a multitude of things SB> to different people and is easily confused. ============== j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026]. SB> IDs are no longer temporary documents. There was a myth that SB> were temporary long after they were unofficially archived, but they SB> are now formally archived by the tools system. This is important SB> because they have a potential influence that stretches beyond SB> the notional six months. =============== B. Such Contributor represents that there are no limits to the Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the Contributor. SB> I do not understand what point B above means. ================ 5.2.3 Timing of Disclosure by ADs By the nature of their office, IETF area directors may become aware of Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG review) and, therefor and in such cases, cannot reasonably be expected to disclose IPR Covering those Contributions until they become aware of them. SB> I made the following point as an input via another route. SB> SB> There are a number of people that would not ordinarily be expected SB> to see a document until the very late stages of the process. SB> The Gen-art reviewers, and the directorates doing cross are SB> reviews. It would seem reasonable to give dispensation to all SB> of the groups assisting the ADs in late stage reviews where SB> the reviewer took no part in the development of the document. SB> SB> Either the above or strike the section. ==================== 5.4. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure? 5.4.1. Content of IPR Disclosures 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. SB> It is new to require the names of inventors. Given that the names SB> of inventors are in the published patent it would seem reasonable SB> to follow the principle of minimizing the actions required by SB> organizations outside the IETF and not add this requirement. If the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific version number. SB> That is presumably the version number in which the IPR was SB> first observed by the IPR owner. You cover updates later SB> but it may be useful to clarify upfront that you do not expect SB> per version IPR refresh. ====================== A. An IPR disclosure must be updated or a new disclosure made promptly after any of the following has occurred unless sufficient information to identify the issued patent was disclosed when the patent application was disclosed: (1) the publication of a previously unpublished patent application, (2) the abandonment of a patent application (3) the issuance of a patent on a previously disclosed patent application ), (4) a material change to the IETF Document covered by the Disclosure that causes the Disclosure to be covered by additional IPR. If the patent application was abandoned, then the new IPR disclosure must explicitly withdraw any earlier IPR disclosures based on the application. IPR disclosures against a particular Contribution are assumed to be inherited by revisions of the Contribution and by any RFCs that are published from the Contribution unless the disclosure has been updated or withdrawn. SB> The above is ideal, but I seriously wonder if a busy IPR group SB> will provide update (2) and (3). Given the application number SB> anyone interested can find the (2)and (3) for themselves. SB> Again the principle of minimizing the work of third parties SB> applies. ======================== 5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure A. Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license. Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and otherwise reasonable and non- discriminatory license, or b) under a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder (e.g., a covenant not to sue). SB> One of the most popular IPR terms is so called MAD. It is surprising SB> that you do not call this out. =================== 5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions. .... then the Contributor must accompany such oral Contribution with an oral declaration that he/she is aware of relevant IPR in as much detail as reasonably possible SB> I do not recall ever seeing a purely verbal disclosure, and wonder SB> what the process is, how this is archived and how it is discovered? ================ 6. Failure to Disclose There may be cases in which individuals are not permitted by their employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance of patent applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required for anyone making a Contribution or participating in IETF activities, a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason, or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose, unless that person knows that his or her employer or sponsor will make the required disclosures on his or her behalf. SB> Doesn't this have implications for those that work or have SB> previously worked in the defence sector? Do we really wish SB> to potentially exclude such individuals? I am not sure how SB> we deal with the situation, but I am concerned about unintended SB> consequences here. ================== 7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing. However, to solve a given technical problem, IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt a technology as to which IPR claims have been made if they feel that this technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. To assist these working groups, it is helpful for the IPR claimants to declare, in their IPR Declarations, the terms, if any, on which they are willing to license their IPR Covering the relevant IETF Documents. SB> I really do not see how a WG can properly apply the above considerations SB> given that it is not permitted to discuss the financial terms SB> of the licence. SB> SB> Historically this may have been less important, but with IoT this changes. SB> what would be a reasonable cost in a core router can be a showstopper SB> in a $1 device. 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. SB> Again I do not see how this works given the inability to discuss SB> the detailed licence terms within a WG. ==================== Some common conditions include 1) terms that are fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory, and which may bear royalties or other financial obligations (FRAND or RAND); 2) royalty-free terms that are otherwise fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND-z); and 3) commitments not to assert declared IPR. SB> One of the most common (at least in the Routing area) is non-assert SB> unless the other party asserts (so called MAD) ==================== 12. Security Considerations This memo relates to IETF process, not any particular technology. There are security considerations when adopting any technology, whether IPR-protected or not. A working group should take those security considerations into account as one part of evaluating the technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no known issues of security with IPR procedures. SB> I wonder if this is entirely correct. How about someone who owns SB> IPR silently waiting until deployment and then getting an IPR SB> based shutdown order? With nations and quasi nations applying unconventional SB> warfare, I suspect that there is a potential IPR attack vector.