Subject: comment on draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:57:45 -0400

1. reference to 2119 is not appropriate.  2119 is for protocol
specifications that have implementation requirements.  anyway, none of
those keywords appears in this document.

2. the template has a space for an I-D or RFC identifier, but no space
for disclosure of patents related to things informally discussed in a WG
or otherwise.  I would not want this document to give the impression
that there is no obligation on participants to disclose patents that
relate to IETF discussions merely because they don't appear in an I-D
yet.  (granted that if a patent application is so far unpublished this
makes it hard for the patent applicant to specify what things might
infringe on the patent if granted, without disclosing the invention)

3. in section V, the first option is "No License" which seems 
imprecise.  In my understanding, license is always required to use a
patented invention.  So I suggest that the wording of this option be
changed, or that the option be removed.  As far as I can tell there are
two kinds of "free" licenses - blanket licenses which are provided for
anyone who wishes to agree to the conditions, and licenses which require
a signed agreement but which still cost nothing.  I'm not sure it's
worth our trying to split this particular hair.

4. it needs to be possible to disclose patent terms of protocols
that aren't (currently) on the standards track, yet the text assumes
standards-track documents only.  an experimental or informational 
document might be a work in progress with potential for later
standardization.   a patent holder can impose any conditions it
wishes.  but we should not presume that the kind of conditions
imposed will require that the document be standardized.

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 16:16:16 -0500

Agree with Keith's point here, with the caveat that working groups that
discuss
things that aren't in drafts may not be headed in a positive direction :-}

We do have hallway conversations, but they aren't covered by Note Well
(per http://www.ietf.org/overview.html), so I would have thought we would
have been On Our Own for "or otherwise"...

Spencer Dawkins

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 18:11:23 -0400

--On Wednesday, 14 May, 2003 15:57 -0400 Keith Moore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> imprecise.  In my understanding, license is always required to
> use a patented invention.  So I suggest that the wording of
> this option be changed, or that the option be removed.  As far
> as I can tell there are two kinds of "free" licenses - blanket
> licenses which are provided for anyone who wishes to agree to
> the conditions, and licenses which require a signed agreement
> but which still cost nothing.  I'm not sure it's worth our
> trying to split this particular hair.

The requirement to formally disclose one's intent to implement 
to the patent-holder can sometimes be a relatively big deal. 
So, yes, I think that hair is worth splitting.

     john

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 18:58:34 -0400

> have been On Our Own for "or otherwise"...

I've always considered hallway conversations *about current IETF work*
to be included.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:57:58 -0400

> > As far

hmm, good point.

Keith

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:09:32 -0500

Dear All,

OK, this is something that could be usefully clarified:
the "verbal statements in IETF meetings" in Note Well

-   SEEMS to be limited to the bullets following, which don't include
hallway conversations,

-   but the last sentence SEEMS to open the door to include hallway
conversations.

What's the intent?

"Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings,
as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place,
which are addressed to:
  -the IETF plenary session,
  -any IETF working group or portion thereof,
  -the IESG or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
  -the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
  -any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group
     or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices,
  -the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function,
that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or
function,
are not subject to these provisions."

Spencer the confused...

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:35:18 -0400

> -   but the last sentence SEEMS to open the door to include hallway

I think it's hard to draw a precise boundary between exactly what is and what
is not subject to disclosure rules.  The things explicitly listed in the Note
Well statement are definitely subject to those rules, but common sense (IMHO)
would dictate that conversations, say, right outside a WG meeting room about
IETF activity are also subject to those rules, and that conversations about a
non-WG document (say between a reader and a document author) that is being
considered for publication by IETF are also subject to those rules.  Still we
have no formal way of declaring a non-WG document under consideration by IETF,
except perhaps a last call.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:11:18 +0200

I have always felt that the only way to be sure is to be
explicit. In other words, during an IETF meeting, if you want
a private conversation to be outside the Note Well scope, you 
need to say to the other person "This conversation isn't
part of the IETF meeting." I've done it, it doesn't offend
anybody if you say it politely, and it clarifies things.

That being said, the place to clarify what is covered by
the disclosure requirements isn't in the template.

   Brian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:11:06 -0500

Absolutely agree with Brian - sorry I wasn't clearer in my original posting.

Some people DO change Subjects when they change subjects. Apparently,
I'm not one of those people...

Spencer

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:46:10 -0400

> the disclosure requirements isn't in the template.

agreed, though it helps if the template isn't confusing.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:42:46 -0700

What this is starting to turn towards is a process wherein an effort for
vetting any initiative will include a presenting of all the open
correspondence and private correspondence and work product that went into
any effort as evidence of the effort.

As side benefit of this is that the WG lists will become less important.

Todd

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 23:25:14 +0200

When evaluating intent, I can only speak authoritatively about my intent at 
the time of the formulation......

I've always thought that the IETF meeting consists of the meetings in the 
WG meeting rooms + whatever other meetings are scheduled as IETF functions 
(the IESG and IAB meetings, and that neither the hallways nor the bar were 
areas included in the meeting. (terminal room? didn't think it was a 
meeting either... my company email doesn't become IETF stuff because I read 
it in the terminal room at an IETF meeting.....)

Most of the time at an IETF meeting, I'm wearing my IETF Chair hat pretty 
prominently, so I consider most remarks addressed to me (and my replies) to 
be covered by the Note Well - and I would expect the same of all IESG and 
IAB members, and WG chairs when talking about WG related materials.

But I didn't think it included *all* hallway conversations; the text "the 
IESG or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG" was explicitly written 
that way so that people could talk to an IESG member about non-IETF stuff 
(fishing?) at an IETF meeting without invoking the disclosure rules, if my 
memory serves me right; an earlier version that just said "the IESG or any 
member thereof" was rejected during editing.

I agree that this should be clear, one way or another. Suggested language 
for either alternative?

                   Harald

--On 14. mai 2003 21:35 -0400 Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think it's hard to draw a precise boundary between exactly what is and
> what is not subject to disclosure rules.  The things explicitly listed in
> the Note Well statement are definitely subject to those rules, but common
> sense (IMHO) would dictate that conversations, say, right outside a WG
> meeting room about IETF activity are also subject to those rules, and
> that conversations about a non-WG document (say between a reader and a
> document author) that is being considered for publication by IETF are
> also subject to those rules.

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 22:55:16 -0700

If we are opening the door to clarification of the Note Well, I suggest that
a more specific reference to "the obligation to disclose IPR" would be more
useful than the vague reference to section 10 of 2026 and the misplaced
emphasis on 'rights in such statements'

proposed (but not perfect):

All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the
IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, including the
obligation to disclose intellectual property rights, which grants to the
IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 2:25 PM
> To: Keith Moore; Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Hallway conversations (Re: comment on 
> draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt)
> 
>