On 25/01/2017 07:42, Jari Arkko wrote:
Stewart,
Thanks again for your comments. Inline:
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.
OK. Do you have a text suggestion, or would dropping “temporary” in this
context be sufficient?
Well we could tell the whole story: they are a temporary document for
the purposes
of actively progressing our work, but are persistent and remain beyond
the publication of any
RFC for the purposes of traceability.
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.
Fair point.
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based on unpublished patent applications.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.
Right. Is there a possibility to have a different rule for 3rd party and
“regular” declarations?
The text has a must, whereas the discloser can only provide that information
as far as practical and with regard to the access to records they have
available
to them at the time they identify the need to disclose.
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.
Good point. But I see no way around that. There are plenty of
good reasons why negotiation about license is not a good
idea to do in IETF.
Also, end results matter. If a draft fails to be adopted,
I’ve seen companies post not just updated drafts but
also updated declarations that ultimately led to adoption.
That’s a fine mode of operation, and one way out of your
catch-22.
I think our historic base is based on a more consistent range of acceptable
costs than we have today, with the introduction or IoT.
Whilst the floor of the IETF is not the place for license fee negotiations
at the moment we are not even allowed to say: "I know that A is better
than B, but a foo cannot afford the licence for A, but can afford it for B".
Instead we would have to say: "I don't want A, I want (inferior) C because
it has no IPR". In other words we currently do not have the ability to
articulate the reason why one approach should be adopted in preference
to another, other than to express a preference for IPR free. I am
concerned
that as the scope of the Internet increases this inability to properly
articulate the root issue becomes problematic.
- Stewart
Jari