Subject: Feedback on guidelines-03 draft

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:13:31 -0700

Scott,

This is getting really close, but there are some things that caught my
eye 
for the purposes of consistency with Scott (Bradner's) drafts, plus
there
was some new text in this draft that raised a few thoughts as I read it.

1. Section 1, Introduction: sub "implementers of Internet (or IETF?)
standards"
for "implementers of the Internet".

2. Section 1, Introduction - your footnote numbering starts with [3]...
I'm assuming you're just waiting until the very end to renumber?

3. Section 2, first bulleted para - sub "notes his/her (or his/her
represented organization's)" for "notes their". 

4. Section 2, second bulleted para - sub "his/her" for "their" (twice)

5. Section 4.4, second para - sub "using the patented technologies" for 
"using the technologies"

6. Section 5.4 - This really feels redundant with the SOB docs.  In the
interests of consistency, should your doc instead be referring to those
docs??

7. Section 5.6, prior to first bulleted paragraph - add bulleted para
"No IPR
license is required to use the technology." (I think this is needed
because
you set this out as the farthest extreme at one end in your previous
paragraph - 
it is different from the option that you start with now, as the new
option means
that the technology can be used without the need to sign _any_ license.
By
contrast, the option you start with now means that a potential licensee
at
least needs to sign a license with the licensor, even though as a
practical
matter there are no restrictions placed on such licensed use.)

8. Section 5.6, first (current) bulleted paragraph - delete "disclosed
and".
(You're only talking about licensing commitments here - different act
from
disclosure of the IPR).

9. Section 5.6 - the reciprocity paragraph. Scott, the "general
reciprocity"
definition as written here somehow appears to have gotten somewhat
confused
with a different concept - that of "defensive suspension". As I
understand this,
"universal reciprocity" is similar to bilateral reciprocity, except that
instead of
the licensee only having to commit to license its own patent claims to
the
licensor, it instead has to license all potential implementers who come
asking.
I think what this means to your text is that the sentence beginning with
"A 'general'
or 'universal' reciprocity...." would change to "A 'general' or
'univeral'
reciprocity restriction is also possible, under which the IPR claimant
makes its
patented technology available to a licensee as long as the licensee
commits
to allow all other implementers of the same IETF standard (not just the
IPR claimant)
to use the licensee's own patented technology covering the standard
under 
comparable terms."

10. Section 5.7 - is there any inconsistency between what you say here
in 
the first paragraph about the wisdom of "proceeding slowly" versus what
SOB is saying in the technology-rights doc, section 6.1.3, where he
urges
the individual to disclose to the IETF "as soon as possible after the 
person realizes the connection"? Maybe this is something you and Scott
want to discuss between you - one way to deal with it is to delete that 
sentence in SOB's draft, though that doesn't seem like the best
approach.
Another would be to refer them to your draft, but I'm not sure that a 
standards track doc refering to an informative doc in this case would
be the best approach either. I can, however, see people getting possibly
confused by what could be read as contradictory guidance.... 

thanks for all the hard work on this!

-- Val See

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:54:21 -0400

On Thu, May 01, 2003 12:13:31PM -0700, Valerie See allegedly wrote:
> standards" for "implementers of the Internet".

ok

> 2. Section 1, Introduction - your footnote numbering starts with
> [3]...  I'm assuming you're just waiting until the very end to
> renumber?

The references are: normative then non-normative; within each, RFCs
first, then drafts; within RFCs, by number.  I decided not to use order
of reference.  OK?

> 4. Section 2, second bulleted para - sub "his/her" for "their" (twice)

These are already "their" in the version at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-03.txt
-- ??

> 5. Section 4.4, second para - sub "using the patented technologies"
> for "using the technologies"

ok

> 6. Section 5.4 - This really feels redundant with the SOB docs.  In
> the interests of consistency, should your doc instead be referring to
> those docs??

There has been some convergence, but the spirit remains different.
Scott (Scott B, that is) and I would like to keep this section.

> "No IPR license is required to use the technology." (I think this is
> needed because you set this out as the farthest extreme at one end in
> your previous paragraph - it is different from the option that you
> start with now, as the new option means that the technology can be
> used without the need to sign _any_ license.  By contrast, the option
> you start with now means that a potential licensee at least needs to
> sign a license with the licensor, even though as a practical matter
> there are no restrictions placed on such licensed use.)

How about, for parallelism, "* IPR disclosed and license not required."?

> and".  (You're only talking about licensing commitments here -
> different act from disclosure of the IPR).

I guess so.  I liked having "disclosed and" as a reminder, but it's not
necessary.

> reciprocity" definition as written here somehow appears to have gotten
> somewhat confused with a different concept - that of "defensive
> suspension". As I understand this, "universal reciprocity" is similar
> to bilateral reciprocity, except that instead of the licensee only
> having to commit to license its own patent claims to the licensor, it
> instead has to license all potential implementers who come asking.  I
> think what this means to your text is that the sentence beginning with
> "A 'general' or 'universal' reciprocity...." would change to "A
> 'general' or 'univeral' reciprocity restriction is also possible,
> under which the IPR claimant makes its patented technology available
> to a licensee as long as the licensee commits to allow all other
> implementers of the same IETF standard (not just the IPR claimant) to
> use the licensee's own patented technology covering the standard under
> comparable terms."

Question to everyone: have you ever seen licensing terms like this,
where you can use my technology as long as you license your related
technology to everyone (not just me)?  The only thing I can think of
that's related would be the GPL.

Val, to me the reason the second alternative was called "general" was
because it was not restricted to the particular area related to the
technology under discussion, but rather was part of a more general
agreement between the two parties.  I'm told these licenses exist.

> in the first paragraph about the wisdom of "proceeding slowly" versus
> what SOB is saying in the technology-rights doc, section 6.1.3, where
> he urges the individual to disclose to the IETF "as soon as possible
> after the person realizes the connection"? Maybe this is something you
> and Scott want to discuss between you - one way to deal with it is to
> delete that sentence in SOB's draft, though that doesn't seem like the
> best approach.  Another would be to refer them to your draft, but I'm
> not sure that a standards track doc refering to an informative doc in
> this case would be the best approach either. I can, however, see
> people getting possibly confused by what could be read as
> contradictory guidance.... 

Good point.  Scott B, what do you want to do?

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

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:19:51 -0700

RB: I have never seen this at a standards body. I have seen it in some
consortiums, where an agreement among the parties covers all IPR issues.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 14:41:05 -0400

--On Tuesday, 06 May, 2003 12:54 -0400 Scott W Brim 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>> 10. Section 5.7 - is there any inconsistency between what you
>> say here in the first paragraph about the wisdom of
>> "proceeding slowly" versus what SOB is saying in the
>> technology-rights doc, section 6.1.3, where he urges the
>> individual to disclose to the IETF "as soon as possible after
>> the person realizes the connection"? Maybe this is something
>> you and Scott want to discuss between you - one way to deal
>> with it is to delete that sentence in SOB's draft, though
>> that doesn't seem like the best approach.  Another would be
>> to refer them to your draft, but I'm not sure that a
>> standards track doc refering to an informative doc in this
>> case would be the best approach either. I can, however, see

Note that I flagged this, from the other side I think, in my 
previous notes on the two documents.  It really is something we 
need to straighten out somehow.

     john

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:11:25 -0400

> need to straighten out somehow.

My preference would be to keep the ramblings in the WG Guidelines draft,
but modify them to make it clear that such disclosures are encouraged
(right now it says "hrm, hoom, let's not be hasty", with the original
intention of balancing the strength of the statement in
technology-rights), and slightly modify sob's text as well.  Currently
technology-rights 6.1.3 says 

  "persons are encouraged to notify the IETF by sending an email message
  to [email-masked].  Such a notice should be sent as soon as
  possible after the person realizes the connection.".  
  
Change that to something like: 

  "persons are encouraged to notify the IETF, first by communicating
  with the appropriate working group chairs and/or area directors,
  working group participants, and finally by sending an email message to
  [email-masked].  Such action should begin as soon as possible after
  the person realizes the connection."

I'll come up with some changes to my text.

?

.swb

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 23:00:05 -0400

Scott (and Scott),

The preference expressed below is more or less equivalent to 
mine.  I.e., I prefer that third-party disclosures/ 
announcements be moderated by some discussion about 
reasonableness and relevance, rather than our inflicting a DoS 
attack on ourselves.  That implies more or less modification to 
the ipr-technology document to make it clear that immediately 
posting a notice of any rumor that people hear is _not_ our 
desire or intent.

     john

--On Tuesday, 06 May, 2003 19:11 -0400 Scott W Brim 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> >> 10. Section 5.7 - is there any inconsistency between what
>> >> you say here in the first paragraph about the wisdom of
>> >> individual to disclose to the IETF "as soon as possible
>> >> after the person realizes the connection"? Maybe this is
>> >> something you and Scott want to discuss between you - one
>> >> way to deal with it is to delete that sentence in SOB's
>> >> draft, though that doesn't seem like the best approach.
>> >> Another would be to refer them to your draft, but I'm not
>> >> sure that a standards track doc refering to an informative
>> >> doc in this case would be the best approach either. I can,
>> >> however, see people getting possibly confused by what
>> >> could be read as contradictory guidance....
>> >
>> previous notes on the two documents.  It really is something
>> we  need to straighten out somehow.
>
> My preference would be to keep the ramblings in the WG
> Guidelines draft, but modify them to make it clear that such
> disclosures are encouraged (right now it says "hrm, hoom,
> let's not be hasty", with the original intention of balancing
> the strength of the statement in technology-rights), and
> slightly modify sob's text as well.  Currently
>   "persons are encouraged to notify the IETF by sending an
> email message   to [email-masked].  Such a notice should be
> sent as soon as   possible after the person realizes the
> connection.".
>   "persons are encouraged to notify the IETF, first by
> communicating   with the appropriate working group chairs
> and/or area directors,   working group participants, and
> finally by sending an email message to   [email-masked].
> Such action should begin as soon as possible after   the
> person realizes the connection."
>

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:48:22 -0400

> but modify them to make it clear that such disclosures are encouraged

In the WG Guidelines draft, I suggest I just add half a sentence at the
very top of the third-party section:  

  It is good to notify the IETF of relevant IPR claims even when they
  are not one's own, and formal procedures for third-party disclosures
  are outlined in ...