Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-13

[Ballot comment]

(1) section 1: "For example, the presentations made by
invited speakers at IETF plenary sessions to discuss
advances in Internet technology generally, or to describe
their existing products or technologies, are not
Contributions." For saag presentations, (that are also
sometimes invited), we (sec ADs) have tended to consider
those as contributions, in the sense that we've asked
presenters to be specific about IPR and to make IPR
declarations if needed. I think the example in the
document is a bad one, don't recall it being discussed
(though it may have been on the IPR list) and would
prefer we not try to make a distinction between some
technical presentations and other technical presentations
at IETF meetings.  I'd say deleting the sentence is a
good enough change. If not, then I'd like to understand
how this affects invited presentations in area meetings
and other meetings (e.g. RGs) and what is expected of
folks chairing such or inviting the invitees.

- 5.5: We've had two recent cases of WGs that were
DoS'd by a declaration that said "will add license terms
later" but where the declaration was never updated and
the IPR holder went radio-silent. It was the same IPR
holder in both cases. The entity in question has
employees who participate frequently and have for an
extended period (so this is not a "new" entity by any
means). I would like if we could say that that's bad
form, but can we? If so, how? And would we need to
re-do LC for such an addition?
- section 1: I still don't think we have a good idea of
how to handle contributions via IM or con calls, since we
don't have a good way to tie a nickname or phone # to a
person, or to ensure that folks participating that way
get the right note-well like warnings. I'm not suggesting
a concrete change however (there's a pile of issues
there) but am just raising this in the hope that someone
remembers to figure it out before it bites us.

- 5.4.1: This language is odd "In addition, if the IETF
Document includes multiple parts and it is not
reasonably apparent which part of such IETF Document is
alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is
helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the
IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered." The
"multiple parts" threw me - I'd say simplify to say
that it's helpful to identify the relevant sections
of drafts.

- 5.4.1: draft-versions: what's the best thing to do, is
it to identify the version in which the covered
technology was first introduced or to identify the most
recent version in which the covered technology is (still)
present?

[Ballot discuss]

(moving discuss-point#2 to a comment, I accept we can't get
that substantively addressed at this point, discussion is
ongoing about point#1, so I've left that as-is. there are no
other changes)

(1) section 1: "For example, the presentations made by
invited speakers at IETF plenary sessions to discuss
advances in Internet technology generally, or to describe
their existing products or technologies, are not
Contributions." For saag presentations, (that are also
sometimes invited), we (sec ADs) have tended to consider
those as contributions, in the sense that we've asked
presenters to be specific about IPR and to make IPR
declarations if needed. I think the example in the
document is a bad one, don't recall it being discussed
(though it may have been on the IPR list) and would
prefer we not try to make a distinction between some
technical presentations and other technical presentations
at IETF meetings.  I'd say deleting the sentence is a
good enough change. If not, then I'd like to understand
how this affects invited presentations in area meetings
and other meetings (e.g. RGs) and what is expected of
folks chairing such or inviting the invitees.

[Ballot comment]


- 5.5: We've had two recent cases of WGs that were
DoS'd by a declaration that said "will add license terms
later" but where the declaration was never updated and
the IPR holder went radio-silent. It was the same IPR
holder in both cases. The entity in question has
employees who participate frequently and have for an
extended period (so this is not a "new" entity by any
means). I would like if we could say that that's bad
form, but can we? If so, how? And would we need to
re-do LC for such an addition?
- section 1: I still don't think we have a good idea of
how to handle contributions via IM or con calls, since we
don't have a good way to tie a nickname or phone # to a
person, or to ensure that folks participating that way
get the right note-well like warnings. I'm not suggesting
a concrete change however (there's a pile of issues
there) but am just raising this in the hope that someone
remembers to figure it out before it bites us.

- 5.4.1: This language is odd "In addition, if the IETF
Document includes multiple parts and it is not
reasonably apparent which part of such IETF Document is
alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is
helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the
IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered." The
"multiple parts" threw me - I'd say simplify to say
that it's helpful to identify the relevant sections
of drafts.

- 5.4.1: draft-versions: what's the best thing to do, is
it to identify the version in which the covered
technology was first introduced or to identify the most
recent version in which the covered technology is (still)
present?

[Ballot comment]
For your information, an error had crept into -12 when I was discussing
with the editors about the conclusions of the last call. I have asked
the "some evidence" text to be removed from 4(D) from the next
version.

[Ballot comment]
Re-sending as I failed to include one comment I had written up ...

= Section 1 =

(1)
"Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
      electronic communications, which are addressed to:

      o the IETF plenary session,"

It's a little odd that this is in the singular, since there could potentially be multiple plenary sessions at a single meeting and certainly across meetings (or, at an all-virtual meeting in the future ...). In keeping with the rest of the bullets, might it make sense to say "any IETF plenary session"?

(2)
I think it would be good to be explicit about the fact that informational and experimental documents are included under the umbrella of the definitions. One way to do this would be to edit the definition of IETF Standards Process as follows:

s/such as the development and publication of informational documents./such as the development and publication of informational and experimental documents (see Section 4 of RFC 2026)./

= Section 5.4.2 =

"If such evidence is satisfactory to the Secretariat,
      after consultation with legal counsel, then the Secretariat will
      make the requested update."

Does "legal counsel" refer to the IETF's legal counsel, or to the Secretariat's own legal counsel, or is it meant to be ambiguous? I think it would be better if it weren't ambiguous.

= Section 5.8 =

"The IETF may make available a public facility (e.g., a web page and
  associated database) for the posting of IPR-related information and
  disclosures that do not conform to the requirements of Sections 5.1
  to 5.6 ("General Disclosures").  General Disclosures may include,
  among other things, "blanket disclosures" described in Section 5.4.3
  (other than blanket disclosures accompanied by royalty-free licensing
  commitments, as permitted by Section 5.4.3), ... General Disclosures do not satisfy an IETF
  Participant's obligation to make IPR disclosures as required by this
  policy."

I find this text a bit confusing, because it makes it sound like if the IETF does make available a public facility for posting General Disclosures, that facility should not be used to post blanket disclosures with royalty-free licensing terms. Is that right? How are participants supposed to post them then? Or are those kinds of disclosures being excluded from the definition of General Disclosures because of the last sentence only? I think it might be useful to separate the concepts of how disclosures get posted from whether they count as satisfying the requirements specified earlier.

Also, I think it would be helpful to add General Disclosures (and possibly blanket disclosures) to the list of definitions in Section 1.

[Ballot comment]
-1, 2nd to last paragraph: I agree with others who do not like the plenary example. But on the flip side, how would we determine if a given presentation at plenary (or elsewhere) did not fall under the IPR rules? Do we expect the IESG to be able to waive "note well" for a presentation? Could they (or the chairs) also do that for an "FYI"  presentation to a working group?

-3.3. B: I don't understand how the "reasonably and personally known" clause applies here. How could make grants, acknowledgements, or agreements that he or she didn't know about? Are there missing words to the effect of "about IPR reasonably and personally known..."?

- 5.2.2, 2nd paragraph: Why are the timing concerns for disclosures under 5.1.2 different than for disclosures under 5.1.1?

- 5.4.2: Did I miss guidance about updates when a material change in a contribution causes an existing disclosure to no longer apply?

-7, last paragraph: "... it
  is reasonable that a working group or the IESG will take into account
  on their own views of the validity..." : Does that refer to the groups themselves, or the individuals that make them up? The idea that the IESG could have a group view on validity sounds perilously close to the idea of the IETF making a determination.

[Ballot comment]
= Section 1 =

"Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
      electronic communications, which are addressed to:

      o the IETF plenary session,"

It's a little odd that this is in the singular, since there could potentially be multiple plenary sessions at a single meeting and certainly across meetings (or, at an all-virtual meeting in the future ...). In keeping with the rest of the bullets, might it make sense to say "any IETF plenary session"?

= Section 5.4.2 =

"If such evidence is satisfactory to the Secretariat,
      after consultation with legal counsel, then the Secretariat will
      make the requested update."

Does "legal counsel" refer to the IETF's legal counsel, or to the Secretariat's own legal counsel, or is it meant to be ambiguous? I think it would be better if it weren't ambiguous.

= Section 5.8 =

"The IETF may make available a public facility (e.g., a web page and
  associated database) for the posting of IPR-related information and
  disclosures that do not conform to the requirements of Sections 5.1
  to 5.6 ("General Disclosures").  General Disclosures may include,
  among other things, "blanket disclosures" described in Section 5.4.3
  (other than blanket disclosures accompanied by royalty-free licensing
  commitments, as permitted by Section 5.4.3), ... General Disclosures do not satisfy an IETF
  Participant's obligation to make IPR disclosures as required by this
  policy."

I find this text a bit confusing, because it makes it sound like if the IETF does make available a public facility for posting General Disclosures, that facility should not be used to post blanket disclosures with royalty-free licensing terms. Is that right? How are participants supposed to post them then? Or are those kinds of disclosures being excluded from the definition of General Disclosures because of the last sentence only? I think it might be useful to separate the concepts of how disclosures get posted from whether they count as satisfying the requirements specified earlier.

Also, I think it would be helpful to add General Disclosures (and possibly blanket disclosures) to the list of definitions in Section 1.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Stephen's discuss and will follow along with Mirja's first comment as we have been ensuring that the notewell applied to repositories.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Stephen's Discuss about calling out a loophole for plenary talks in this document. I'll watch that discussion.

The Introduction reproduces the principles from Section 10 in RFC 2026, but also points out that this document replaces that section, and doesn't say anything about what happens to the principles - are they carried forward unchanged, or something else? It would be helpful to clarify that.

I assume "Intetrnet-Drafts" is a typo.

[Ballot comment]
1) Is it too early to consider contributions to repos that are not hosted by the IETF (github) as IETF contribution?

2) I would emphasize the last paragraph in section 7 ("It should be noted that the validity and enforceability ...") because a lot of people are not aware of that. Maybe at least put it in an own section?

[Ballot discuss]

I have two things I'd like to chat about. Hopefully
neither will take too much time...

(1) section 1: "For example, the presentations made by
invited speakers at IETF plenary sessions to discuss
advances in Internet technology generally, or to describe
their existing products or technologies, are not
Contributions." For saag presentations, (that are also
sometimes invited), we (sec ADs) have tended to consider
those as contributions, in the sense that we've asked
presenters to be specific about IPR and to make IPR
declarations if needed. I think the example in the
document is a bad one, don't recall it being discussed
(though it may have been on the IPR list) and would
prefer we not try to make a distinction between some
technical presentations and other technical presentations
at IETF meetings.  I'd say deleting the sentence is a
good enough change. If not, then I'd like to understand
how this affects invited presentations in area meetings
and other meetings (e.g. RGs) and what is expected of
folks chairing such or inviting the invitees.

(2) 5.5: We've had two recent cases of WGs that were
DoS'd by a declaration that said "will add license terms
later" but where the declaration was never updated and
the IPR holder went radio-silent. It was the same IPR
holder in both cases. The entity in question has
employees who participate frequently and have for an
extended period (so this is not a "new" entity by any
means). I would like if we could say that that's bad
form, but can we? If so, how? And would we need to
re-do LC for such an addition?

[Ballot comment]

- section 1: I still don't think we have a good idea of
how to handle contributions via IM or con calls, since we
don't have a good way to tie a nickname or phone # to a
person, or to ensure that folks participating that way
get the right note-well like warnings. I'm not suggesting
a concrete change however (there's a pile of issues
there) but am just raising this in the hope that someone
remembers to figure it out before it bites us.

- 5.4.1: This language is odd "In addition, if the IETF
Document includes multiple parts and it is not
reasonably apparent which part of such IETF Document is
alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is
helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the
IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered." The
"multiple parts" threw me - I'd say simplify to say
that it's helpful to identify the relevant sections
of drafts.

- 5.4.1: draft-versions: what's the best thing to do, is
it to identify the version in which the covered
technology was first introduced or to identify the most
recent version in which the covered technology is (still)
present?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
  patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
  designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
  much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical
  proposal as early as possible in the development process. The
  policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the
  public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR
  holders.  This memo sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR related
  to technology worked on within the IETF.  It also describes the
  objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This memo
  replaces section 10 of RFC 2026 and obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc6701: Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy (Informational - IETF stream)
    rfc4844: The RFC Series and RFC Editor (Informational - IAB stream)
    rfc6401: RSVP Extensions for Admission Priority (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
  patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
  designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
  much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical
  proposal as early as possible in the development process. The
  policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the
  public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR
  holders.  This memo sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR related
  to technology worked on within the IETF.  It also describes the
  objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This memo updates
  RFC 2026 and obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

There has been a set of exchanges between the AD and the authors about some aspects of the document. The AD believes that we finally have a plan for going ahead, and we are now waiting for document changes.

Finally. I’ve made some progress on this. I have reviewed the draft during this week. I apologize for the incredible amount of time this has taken.

Here are my observations:

I have contacted several people for comments, and have gotten some (positive) feedback already. Will wait a bit for additional responses to come in.

It is not easy to spot the real differences given the amount of re-organisation. I’ve prepared a re-ordered RFC 3979 and a diff for easier comparison: http://www.arkko.com/ietf/ipr/bradner-from-rfc.diff.html

I’m worried about removal of material from Section 2. Can you assure me that you think everything is still covered what we were saying previously?

Section 2 replace “/“ with a paragraph break.

I’m worried about the change in 5.1.1. to only written contributions, and the removal of the “there is no excuse” text.

In Section 5.4.1, we now must identify sections covered by the patent. Do you believe we had consensus on this?

I’m also worried about changes in Section 5 from 5.4.2 onwards. The changes seem reasonable. Are you confident that they cover what we wanted to say, and not lose something from RFC 3979?

The changes section mentions lurkers, but does it have the correct description of what the outcome of the discussion was? My recollection is that we decided pure lurking does not lead to a disclose requirement. Section 1 item k text on “acting in order to influence” text seems to support my memory. Is the changes section up to date on this point?