Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:05:07 +1300

I updated this to be a preference rather than a requirement,
as the discussion of the -00 draft suggested

     Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:30:01 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : Considering availability of free software when evaluating Draft Standards
	Author(s)       : B. Carpenter
	Filename        : draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2007-11-05

This draft responds to a request for input by the IPR WG Chair.  It
proposes that the IETF's criteria for evaluating Draft Standard
specifications should preferably include the availability of free
software.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt

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

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:27:39 -0800

> as the discussion of the -00 draft suggested

I'm still not happy.  The definition of "free" varies way too much and
is still developing.  Under the umbrella of "free", some proponents
will be easy to satisfy while others will be impossible.  You could
define "free" later, but then you're committing yourself to an unknown
policy.  Instead, avoid using the term entirely, consider the goals,
and go straight to the real goals.  What do you think "free" implies
that you want taken into consideration?  We can certainly agree that
licensing issues should be taken into consideration.  If you want to
push for preferences, be specific for preferences for licensing
issues.  But don't commit the IETF to a term the meaning of which we
know is changing rapidly.

Here is what I proposed the last time.

>    A specification from which at least two independent and
>    interoperable implementations from different code bases have been
>    developed, and for which sufficient successful operational
>    experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft
>    Standard" level.  Issues with general deployability should be
>    taken into consideration, including issues of licensing terms
>    associated with those implementations.                                                               
Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:47:19 +1300

Scott,

Yes, I thought you'd say that ;-)

I was aiming at a median of what I thought I read in the discussion.
We'll have to see how discussion continues on this version...

    Brian

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:58:10 -0800

This may be OT but what if the WG's are restructured - here is one 
possiblility which yeilds a new process that is provably fair and can be 
scaled up the wazoo - this will allow better control of the SDO too... but 
hey, its just an idea eh?

What if the WG's are restructured

    1)    Each WG has a set of projects assigned to it, the projects each 
have a formal sponsor-manager who is a member in good standing with that WG 
and has the time to devote to making the standard's candidate's IP managed 
and available. This Project Manager reports to the WG Chair and is 
responsible for defining the list of IP's that constitute the particular 
Standards Effort.

    2)   Each Project then has a registered set of member's & to vote on 
anything, you must be registered with the Project, otherwise your input is 
considered Color Commentary. That way dissenting opinions are what they 
are - opinions, and whether they are a part of the decision process or not 
is then  based on that persons productivity. This is the put-up-or-shut-up 
model of participation... and hey - it will work.

So then the Submission of any document for publication in a WG registers 
that person as a member of that project or IP Workproduct Development 
effort. Project Members are Developers, Reviewers, Tester's, and External 
Commentator's. External Commentator's dont get to vote on whether something 
is done or not... they are not involved in the Governance of an Initiative. 
Reviewers must have participated in the Vetting of the Standards Effort and 
for that they are entitled to one (1) vote. Tester's likewise are entitled 
to a single vote unless they produce the Test Plan which is a core document 
in the Standards Process.

    3)    Each Project's voting is weighted by the individuals role in the 
project.  In this model an individual may ultimately cast five (5) votes in 
the Vetting-Completion Review Process.  How I stack it up as as follows

Role                                          Vote Points
-------------------------------------------------
Commentator                             None
Vetter (not developer)              +1
Tester                                       +1
Developer                                +2
Implementor                             +2

So how this stacks up is

    Johnny a Developer and Tester gets 4 votes in the process, Janice a 
Tester and Vetter gets 2, and Jochaim an Implementor, Developer and Tester 
gets 5. pretty simple model - then we add the votes up on whether something 
has passed the hurdles or not.  Tester is someone working on the testing of 
the protocol submission and the and would have had to have been a vetter to 
be capable of testing, so they get 2 votes. Someone who writes either  the 
ID's or RFC's or Test Plan gets 2 votes. Simple Math is all it takes then to 
create a Standard.

This process is fair and takes input from those who are committed and put 
forth the effort to 'participate in a peer review and development process'. 
My take is that this is a really powerfull way to equalize all  of the 
IETF's operations and install more even governance. If you want to have a 
voice in the process - you gotta produce - otherwise its noise.

Todd

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:21:07 -0500

Well, while it is probably not the only answer, I do like Scott's
proposed text.

Joel

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:00:48 -0800

>>>>    taken into consideration, including issues of licensing terms

Works fine.

---

From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:21:07 -0500

As do I.

Regards,

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 5:21 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: [email-masked]; Scott Brim
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D 
> Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt]
> 
> 
> Well, while it is probably not the only answer, I do like 
> Scott's proposed text.
> 
> Joel
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Scott,
> > 
> >>> I updated this to be a preference rather than a 
> requirement, as the 
> >>> discussion of the -00 draft suggested
> >>>
> >>>     Brian
> >>
> >> I'm still not happy.  The definition of "free" varies way too much 
> >> and is still developing.  Under the umbrella of "free", some 
> >> proponents will be easy to satisfy while others will be 
> impossible.  
> >> You could define "free" later, but then you're committing 
> yourself to 
> >> an unknown policy.  Instead, avoid using the term 
> entirely, consider 
> >> the goals, and go straight to the real goals.  What do you think 
> >> "free" implies that you want taken into consideration?  We can 
> >> certainly agree that licensing issues should be taken into 
> >> consideration.  If you want to push for preferences, be 
> specific for 
> >> preferences for licensing issues.  But don't commit the IETF to a 
> >> term the meaning of which we know is changing rapidly.
> >>
> >> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> >>
> >

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 05:21:16 +0100 (CET)

+1

Stephan

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:30:41 +0100

TS Glassey wrote:
> possiblility which yeilds a new process that is provably fair and can 
> be scaled up the wazoo - this will allow better control of the SDO 
> too... but hey, its just an idea eh?
Yes, it is off topic.

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:25:50 -0800

Thanks for agreeing with the obvious Harald

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>; "IPR WG" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: OT? Re: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt]

>> scaled up the wazoo - this will allow better control of the SDO too... 
>> but hey, its just an idea eh?
> Yes, it is off topic.
>

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:34:32 -0800

Stewe and BEC -

OK - if the rules are:

    1) All IETF Documents must be properly filed and fully vetted prior to 
being advanced.

    2)    Two each Interoperable Implementation's from separate code bases 
are tested per an approved Test and Qualification Plan which would also be 
filed as an RFC

    3)    That any and all IPR issues persuant to the IETF's rights are 
resolved before advancing the effort.

And the IETF's interests are specific to a Standards Process, then 
Submitter's

So then the IETF's use provisions must convey any and all submission rights 
for any initiative to the IETF, but this is specific to the use model, i.e. 
the publishing of the standards document's and the implementation of those 
instances of the protocol necessary for testing to demonstrate the 
Interoperability between the two or more portages. No OTHER licenses are 
necessary to make a Standard under the IETF's process.

If the IETF also wants the parties who submit those IP's for Standardization 
to convey ownership in the core IP or the Derivative Use Rights to the 
Standard itself then that would be accomplished as a separate conveyance.

The IETF Standard's Process
----------------------------------
As to the Standards Process itself, I dont believe that anything beyond the 
simple republication and derivative rights licenses are needed here in the 
IETF. There are a lot of people who are wanting to enforce a Open Source 
IETF model and I dont get why that is nescessary. A standard is not a piece 
of code - it's a reference, and as such its referred against, not used in a 
functional sense.

That said, from a workflow perspecitve, nothing else is needed to create a 
Standard as far as I can tell, beyond simple publication and limited use 
rights for the creation of the Test/Proof Instances of the Protocol under 
Development. In fact I challenge ANYONE here to find a process specific 
requirement currently in place that means that more IP Rights are needed 
beyond the republication and derivative rights licenses for the Test Case 
Implementation's, and until someone here in the IPR WG can point out what 
other IP Rights are needed beyond that I think you have a problem. The 
reason is that the "requirement to turn over to the IETF any and all rights" 
is new and hass changed creating a standards process which was 'unilaterally 
changed by one of the parties in the contract without the other party's 
knowledge or approval' and as such they are uninforceable.

Is Open Source Nescessary?
---------------------------------
So then is an Open Source license needed to create a Standard? and is Open 
Source Code itself that is used in IETF Standards necessary for licensing as 
well?

The answer to this is "No". All that is needed to create a Standard is a set 
of documents and a pair of code implementations which demonstrate the 
operations of the design in the Reference Documents. That said, does the 
IETF need to be Open Source to rely on Open Source materials? I am saying 
the answer is NO... The IETF doesnt need to embrace anything regarding Open 
Source technologies licensing models becuase the IETF doesnt convey rights 
to code or implementation's it conveys rights to build an implementation 
from a Srandard.

Patents
--------
Alot of people argue about patents, and the IETF cannot provide anything in 
patent coverage as far as I can tell.

A Open Use International Technologies Standard is a standard, and its 
creation should allow anyone to create a derivative technology for which 
they are capable of filing a Utility Patent on their own implementation but 
no CORE TECHNOLOGY patent's as the work was created in a transparent manner 
in the IETF for open adoption.

This model is really what you folks are looking for I am betting and its 
pretty simple to define and constrain what is necessary to make this work; 
All it takes is a fleshed out model so we can poke it.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:13:52 -0800

Ooops...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Brian E Carpenter" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt]

> And the IETF's interests are specific to a Standards Process, then 

need only convey those rights necessary to meet those uses. I propose this 
is enough.

>
> So then the IETF's use provisions must convey any and all submission 
> rights for any initiative to the IETF, but this is specific to the use 
> model, i.e. the publishing of the standards document's and the 
> implementation of those instances of the protocol necessary for testing to 
> demonstrate the Interoperability between the two or more portages. No 
> OTHER licenses are necessary to make a Standard under the IETF's process.
>
> If the IETF also wants the parties who submit those IP's for 
> Standardization to convey ownership in the core IP or the Derivative Use 
> Rights to the Standard itself then that would be accomplished as a 
> separate conveyance.
>
> As to the Standards Process itself, I dont believe that anything beyond 
> the simple republication and derivative rights licenses are needed here in 
> the IETF. There are a lot of people who are wanting to enforce a Open 
> Source IETF model and I dont get why that is nescessary. A standard is not 
> a piece of code - it's a reference, and as such its referred against, not 
> used in a functional sense.
>
> reason is that the "requirement to turn over to the IETF any and all 
> rights" is new and hass changed creating a standards process which was 
> 'unilaterally changed by one of the parties in the contract without the 
> other party's knowledge or approval' and as such they are uninforceable.
>
> Source Code itself that is used in IETF Standards necessary for licensing 
> as well?
>
> The answer to this is "No". All that is needed to create a Standard is a 
> set of documents and a pair of code implementations which demonstrate the 
> the answer is NO... The IETF doesnt need to embrace anything regarding 
> Open Source technologies licensing models becuase the IETF doesnt convey 
> rights to code or implementation's it conveys rights to build an 
> implementation from a Srandard.
>
> Patents
> --------
> Alot of people argue about patents, and the IETF cannot provide anything 
> in patent coverage as far as I can tell.
>
> they are capable of filing a Utility Patent on their own implementation 
> but no CORE TECHNOLOGY patent's as the work was created in a transparent 
> manner in the IETF for open adoption.
>