Subject: disclosure template

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 16:53:58 -0400

Let me call the attention of the WG to the disclosure template draft,
draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt.  Are there any issues with it?

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 19:36:30 -0500

Dear Steve,

I believe this has already been mentioned on the list, but - the template is
focused on primary disclosure. Is there any guidance (template-wise) for
third-party disclosure?

Spencer

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:03:05 -0400

> focused on primary disclosure. Is there any guidance (template-wise) for

I suspect I, personally, would find it easier if there were separate
templates for first- and third-party.  However, it seems that the IEEE
ended up with a single template for everything.

I think the best thing to do would be to proceed with a template just
for the usual case, first-party, and then talk about whether to extend
it for third-party or create a new template after it's been used a bit.
One factor will be to see how fast it moves to being a web-based form.

..Scott

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 21:57:55 +0300 (EEST)

> draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt.  Are there any issues with it?

A quick review.  I'm very disturbed by the output, because there seems a 
major miscommunication somewhere on the disclosures or licensing -- or 
I've misunderstood something badly.

1) this is totally wrong.

It also documents the information requested in
   licensing declarations for IETF Standards, Proposed Standards, and
   Draft Standards.

==> the declarations must be made for all the submissions, I think -- 
whether on (or to be on) the standards track or not!  In particular, this 
includes Experimental, but also any other IETF document.

==> same in the template section V, and commentary sections.

2) 

It should be more explicit about talking about IPR in general, not just 
patents.  In particular, patent applications come to mind.  Reading the 
document, it seems that non-camera-ready patent applications were added 
only as an afterthought, an in an incomplete manner (e.g. title, 
abstract).

3)

Folks already brought up my worry about the uselessness with third party
disclosures.

4)

Editorial nit:

   II. Patent HolderÆs Contact for License Application

==> replace the non-ascii char.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:24:56 -0400

> ==> same in the template section V, and commentary sections.

That's true.  I think I agree, the first two sentences could be cleaned
up, since disclosure applies to all contributions.  However, the goal in
this particular case is not to make a form that works for every possible
disclosure requirement of every possible IPR, but rather for first-party
disclosure of patents.  

> only as an afterthought, an in an incomplete manner (e.g. title, 

The IETF doesn't have this requirement on patent applications, and the
goal is to make current procedures easier.  This is administrative
stuff, not new policy.

.swb

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:44:23 -0400 (EDT)

> The IETF doesn't have this requirement on patent applications, and the

I maye be confused but the IETF does have a disclosure requirement
that covers patenet applications

(or are you referring to the title & abstract note?)

Scott

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:59:39 -0400

> (or are you referring to the title & abstract note?)

Right, which I believe was his point, to require more specifics even for
applications.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:34:17 +0200

> Right, which I believe was his point, to require more specifics even for

You can't *require* this because applications are only disclosed
voluntarily. You can ask politely ;-)

   Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:29:22 +0200

> draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt.  Are there any issues with it?

Hi, I'm a newcomer to the IPR WG. Maybe questions for examples are not
relevant for this WG discussions, but let me please formulate it.

 >   ___   Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers
 >         with Possible Royalty/Fee

I was surprised to see "Possible Royalty/Fee". Was there any example in
the past where a license on an IETF protocol was sold to anybody, in
exchange of a fee (a yes/no answer would suffice, no need of details)?

Or is the purpose of this tick only to publicize the intent of the I-D
author with respect to the licensing scheme?

Alex

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:23:26 -0400

> exchange of a fee (a yes/no answer would suffice, no need of details)?

Yes (but not commonly).  We've had a lot of discussion of this option.
You would find the last couple of months of the mailing list archives to
be informative
(www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/maillist.html)

> author with respect to the licensing scheme?

No, the intent is to produce an administrative mechanism based purely on
what's in the drafts, and the intention of the drafts is to clarify and
explicate current policy.  No extensions, no secret agendas.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:03:39 -0400

Scott,

I read Alexandru's question a bit differently, to involve 
wondering whether IETF might require licenses to use the 
standards (or protocols) themselves.  The answer to that 
question is "no, the templates and documents that are now under 
discussion have only to do with rights to use technology that 
might be required to implement a standard.  The standards and 
protocols themselves are never encumbered and the intent of 
several of the "submission rights" provisions is to make that 
completely clear.

regards,
    john

--On Wednesday, 14 May, 2003 14:23 -0400 Scott W Brim 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > Let me call the attention of the WG to the disclosure
>> > template draft, draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt.  Are there
>> > any issues with it?
>>
>> Hi, I'm a newcomer to the IPR WG. Maybe questions for
>> examples are not relevant for this WG discussions, but let me
>> please formulate it.
>>
>> >   ___   Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All
>> >   Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee
>>
>> I was surprised to see "Possible Royalty/Fee". Was there any
>> example in the past where a license on an IETF protocol was
>> sold to anybody, in exchange of a fee (a yes/no answer would
>> suffice, no need of details)?
>
> Yes (but not commonly).  We've had a lot of discussion of this
> option. You would find the last couple of months of the
> mailing list archives to be informative
>> Or is the purpose of this tick only to publicize the intent
>> of the I-D author with respect to the licensing scheme?
>
> No, the intent is to produce an administrative mechanism based
> purely on what's in the drafts, and the intention of the
> drafts is to clarify and explicate current policy.  No
> extensions, no secret agendas.