Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Feedback on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:23:00 +0300

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

My co-chair has recused himself from WG chair issues related to this
draft, for the obvious reason.

If I understood M. Moreau's message, he is not making any IPR claims
against anything covered in Peter's current draft.  Rather, he is:

a) Suggesting that Peter incorporate an idea discussed in one of his
   own drafts;

b) Claiming that he has an IPR interest in the idea he is suggesting
   that Peter incorporate into Peter's draft,

c) Making some non-binding comments about what he might do in the
   future if his IPR claims are held to be valid, and

d) Stating that he will file a formal IPR statement at some future
   date.

With no disrespect to M. Moreau intended, and without expressing any
opinion on the validity of M. Moreau's claims, the suggestion seems
only peripherally related to the main purpose of Peter's draft, and I
see no pressing need for the WG to dive into the IPR rathole without
having even explored any other alternatives.

Absent strong support from disinterested WG participants for having
Peter's draft explore M. Moreau's putatively encumbered idea, I will
direct Peter to decline M. Moreau's suggestion, at least until
M. Moreau has filed his IPR statement and it is possible for a
disinterested person to reach an independent opinion on the extent,
relevance, and validity of M. Moreau's IPR claims.

</hat>

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:23:00 +0300

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

</hat>

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:30:43 -0400

Rob Austein wrote:
> [...]
> [...], I will

Two things:

Rob's message is replying on the mailing list to a private e-mail 
message from me to the four authors for the -01 revision of 
draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming (Prague dnsop meeting minutes section 
5.3). Given the alarming tone of the message, I'm afraid any 
observation, comment, or question would be counter-productive.

In terms of wg governance, I doubt the wg chair has the authority to so 
unilaterally "direct" a wg draft editor on a specific technical issue, 
at least in the above elusive circumstances and under the above terms. I 
thus respectfully ask the dnsop wg chair to either point to the wg 
rule(s) under which he believes to have sufficient authority, or cancel 
the above directive.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:30:43 -0400

Two things:

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:41:39 -0700

> draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming (Prague dnsop meeting minutes section 

Rob's note is not a "reply".  It well might be pursuing a matter you raised 
privately, but his note follows none of the syntax, style or even semantics of 
a "reply".

Besides that, you sent a note to folks who are formally acting in a wg role, 
and your note pertained to a fundamental wg issue, and you somehow think that 
your sending it to them privately means that they shouldn't even raise the 
topic on the list?  (Note that your message was not quoted, so we can dispense 
with "copyright" related issues.)

My own view is they would have been derelict if he had *not* pursued the 
matter with the public wg mailing list.  That's what IETF transparency is 
supposed to be about.

> unilaterally "direct" a wg draft editor on a specific technical issue, 

Oh boy.  What you don't know about IETF wg management methods...

Rob carefully qualified his directive, to be contingent upon the absence of wg 
consensus to the contrary.  This is a time-honored wg management method for 
making progress.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:41:39 -0700

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:46:44 -0400 (EDT)

> privately, but his note follows none of the syntax, style or even semantics of 

I think the issue is that Mr. Austein would not have even known about
the private communication unless the authors had told him of it.

Further, without any substantive consideration on-list by the WG of the
proposal, Mr. Austein has "directed" the WG not to even consider the
proposal.  This seems a little bit "back-alley", and not the open
discussion that ought to happen.

It seems the Koch hasn't recused himself, but merely asked Austein to
act for him. That isn't recusal.

> with "copyright" related issues.)

The 4 authors aren't formally acting in a WG role. Koch (one of the 4) 
said he "recused".

> matter with the public wg mailing list.  That's what IETF transparency is 

Transparancy is what the IETF is about. A transparent act would be for
the authors, acting only as authors, to come forward to the working
group to discuss Mr. Moreau's suggestion, or to reject it privately, at
which point Mr. Moreau would be free to bring it up to the Working Group
himself.

> Oh boy.  What you don't know about IETF wg management methods...

Didn't you recently say the IETF wasn't a non-profit???

In fact, this issue of WG 'direction' was just recently discussed. Jeff
Schiller pointed out that a 'direction' of this sort is only appropriate
when the working group has deadlocked and can't proceed. Plainly, the
back-channel discussions don't represent the working group and don't
show the working group is dead-locked. So 'direction' is inappropriate
at this time.

> Rob carefully qualified his directive, to be contingent upon the
> absence of wg consensus to the contrary.  This is a time-honored wg
> management method for making progress.

Actually, the working group hasn't had a chance to develop a consensus.  
Austein's direction is premature.  Such notice is only 'time-honored'
when the working group can't agree.  We haven't gotten to the point of
hearing all the details, so how can one claim we can't agree?

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:46:44 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:09:27 +0200

* Dave Crocker:

> Rob's note is not a "reply".  It well might be pursuing a matter you
> raised privately, but his note follows none of the syntax, style or
> even semantics of a "reply".

I'm confused.  I thought the message mentioned by Thierry is
<[email-masked]>, and Rob's reply is contained in
<[email-masked]>; the latter is a
reply in all relevant senses I can currently think of.

Perhaps there was another message to the four authors that hasn't been
Cc:ed to the mailing list, which was actually "private" and not merely
"off the record" (or whatever), but I can't infer that from Rob's
message.

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:09:27 +0200

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:38:56 -0700

> "off the record" (or whatever), but I can't infer that from Rob's

I was working on the theory that "private e-mail message from me to the four
authors" meant off the list.

If the note was more public than that -- as your note and Lucy's suggests, and
yes I saw that cited note -- than the issue of "private" is moot.

My real point, of course, is that it doesn't matter.

The question would appear to be whether there is serious working group
consensus to go counter to Rob's default decision and, instead, to discuss the
merits of the topic -- as opposed to niggling process nuances.

Based on my own reading of 12 hours of postings, there so far appears not to be.

d/

ps. FWIW, I decided to dive in on this because I have nothing to do with the
particular topic -- and therefore no biases about it -- and I like seeing wg
chairs try to make progress, albeit in a well-documented manner, such as Rob
has done.

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:38:56 -0700

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:03:28 -0400

Dave Crocker wrote:

> 
> 
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
>> I'm confused.  [...]
> 
> I was working on the theory that [...] meant off the list.
> 

My apologies to all, indeeed I did copy the original message to the 
dnsop list.

> My real point, of course, is that it doesn't matter.

I agree on this point.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:03:28 -0400

I agree on this point.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 May 2007 04:14:57 +0000

can someone who followed the POISED effort please explain IETF's policies
around restricted IPR?  i really feel a need to avoid poisoning my thinking
by accidentally reading somebody's draft that recommends restricted IPR.  we
already know that such drafts won't pass WGLC, and i'm a member of a largish
set of people who would lodge process complaints with IESG and/or IAB if such
a draft were to somehow sneak through WGLC.  so why isn't there a rule against
submitting drafts covered by restrictive IPR in the first place?

T-M's suggestions here follow his prior IPR attack in dnsext ("TAKREM"), and
it's just one stupid waste of time after another for all concerned.  the only
possible beneficiary of this waste is T-M himself, if he wants to be able to
show prior art during some later patent lawsuit.  there ought to be a rule
that IPR disclosures must accompany all proposals, including mailing list
posts, and the moderator ought to simply squash anything that's encumbered.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 May 2007 04:14:57 +0000

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:33:24 -0700

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:33:24 -0700

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:21:59 -0400

On 11 May 2007 04:14:57 +0000 Paul wrote:
PV> can someone who followed the POISED effort please explain IETF's policies
PV> around restricted IPR?  [...]  so why isn't there a rule against
PV> submitting drafts covered by restrictive IPR in the first place?
PV> 
PV> [...]  there ought to be a rule
PV> that IPR disclosures must accompany all proposals, including mailing list
PV> posts, and the moderator ought to simply squash anything that's encumbered.

I think the rules on IPR are already well defined in some RFC, and it's
way off-topic for this mailing list.

I understand your frustration, and regardless of my own opinions of Mr.
Moreau and his efforts, I think there are a few reasons why your post
was unnecessary:

- There hasn't been any messages indicating support, which means that
there's not really anything to object to yet.

- Mr Moreau indicated he was willing to offer a free license for use of
the idea:

> 	In this context, I intend to file an IPR disclosure statement offering 
> a free, universal, non-exclusive, time-unlimited license to use the 
> above idea (that is conveniently defined by reference to the claims as 
> they stand) for DNS root zone file publishing by any DNS root zone 
> operator, conditional to the approval of your draft with the above idea 
> included.

I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for
accepting encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone
operators is a bit troubling.)

Anyways, the basic idea is that there's no need to start the
flame-fest/endless arguments until it looks like there is actually some
support for the idea.

-- 
Robert Story
SPARTA

---

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:21:59 -0400

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:47:12 -0400

Mr Story:

Thanks for looking into this. See my technical comment/question below:

> accepting encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> operators is a bit troubling.)
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To reassure you, the patent application claims neither validating 
resolver process not validating resolver software media nor validating 
resolver system. If it were doing any of this, the spirit of the 
pre-announced IPR disclosure is to make resolver "free license" for 
DNSSEC root priming purposes, so the IPR wording would be adjusted 
accordingly.

Do you see the priming draft scope to cover anything beyond priming the 
DNS root? I didn't read anything in this direction.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:47:12 -0400

Mr Story:

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:16 +0000

> I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting
> encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone operators is a bit
> troubling.)

yes.  (also, TAKREM was offered free for GPL implementators, and so, worthless.)

> Anyways, the basic idea is that there's no need to start the flame-fest /
> endless arguments until it looks like there is actually some support for the
> idea.

i'm trying to uplevel the argument.  can we make posting to ietf WG mailing
lists contingent on IPR disclosure, and can we make it a moderation principle
that IPR'd posts will simply not be published here, ever?

my concern is that T-M's encumbered proposals will remove certain approaches
from the table.  or that once we've all heard one of his ideas, he can claim
later that any similar ideas in our work product are based on his proposals.
this feels like a "mental contamination" strategy and i'm angry enough about
it by now that i'm willing to raise my hand and object, for once and for all.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:16 +0000

---

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:51:05 -0400

On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:16 +0000 Paul wrote:
PV> > I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting

btw, the IPR RFC is 3979 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt>

PV> i'm trying to uplevel the argument.  can we make posting to ietf WG mailing
PV> lists contingent on IPR disclosure, and can we make it a moderation principle
PV> that IPR'd posts will simply not be published here, ever?

I don't think so. 3979 does say that posting to the mailing list is an
"IETF Contribution" (Section 1.c). Section 6.2 encourages 'timely
disclosure' of IPR (which, to give him credit, Mr. Moreau is very good
at).

PV> my concern is that T-M's encumbered proposals will remove certain approaches
PV> from the table.  or that once we've all heard one of his ideas, he can claim
PV> later that any similar ideas in our work product are based on his proposals.
PV> this feels like a "mental contamination" strategy and i'm angry enough about
PV> it by now that i'm willing to raise my hand and object, for once and for all.

I understand, and IANAL, but I don't think that whether or not we've
heard his ideas has an bearing on whether or not he can later claim an
something is infringing. So, from that perspective, it's better that we
know what the IPR claims are, so we can stay away from those areas if
need be.

Also, Section 2 of 3979 says:

   RFC 2026, Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the
   IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights:

   [...]
   (b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology
       for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such
       a use is warranted
   (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
       the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
       of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
       group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
       Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may
       ultimately Cover the technology under discussion. 

And in Section 8:

   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.  But IETF working groups have the discretion
   to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
   terms, or even with no licensing commitment, 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.

So, in theory, the idea could be so good that it would be accepted, IPR
and all. Unlikely, I know, but possible. Given the posture in 3979, I
think any attempt to censor contributions based on IPR status could
likely be appealed by some arcane IETF process, wasting even more time,
and likely resulting the the censorship being overruled.

Like I said, I completely understand your position, but the process is
supposed to be open. 3979 even explicitly acknowledges that IPR
claims can be "in some cases be disingenuous, i.e., made to affect the
IETF Standards Process rather than to inform."

---

From: Robert Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:51:05 -0400

[...]

And in Section 8: