Network Working Group Scott Bradner
Internet-Draft Harvard University
Intended status: BCP
Obsoletes: 3979, 4879 Jorge Contreras
Updates: 2026 American University
Expires: June 9, 2013 December 9, 2012
Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-00.txt
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 about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as
possible. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet
community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate
rights of IPR holders. This memo details 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.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Bradner & Contreras [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
[tbd]
1. Definitions
The following definitions are for terms used in the context of this
document. Other terms, including "IESG," "ISOC," "IAB," and "RFC
Editor," are defined in [RFC2028].
a. "Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity,
in each case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process
or that is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has
adopted this definition. Such statements include oral statements,
as well as written and electronic communications, which are
addressed to:
o the IETF plenary session,
o any IETF working group or portion thereof,
o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,
o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
o any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room or discussion board,
including the IETF list itself,
o any working group or design team list, or any other list
functioning under IETF auspices or the primary function of
which is to facilitate IETF-related discussions,
o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function.
Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
activity, group or function, are not Contributions in the context
of this document. 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.
Bradner & Contreras [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
Throughout this memo, the term "written Contribution" is used.
For purposes of this memo, "written" means reduced to a written or
visual form in any language and any media, permanent or temporary,
including but not limited to traditional documents, e-mail
messages, discussion board postings, slide presentations, text
messages, instant messages, and transcriptions of oral statements.
b. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution
c. "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a
patent application (including a provisional patent application to
the extent that it contains claims) in any jurisdiction , or any
other Intellectual Property Right, would necessarily be infringed
by the exercise of a right (e.g., making, using, selling,
importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with respect to an
Implementing Technology. For purposes of this definition, "valid
claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or patent application
which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled or disclaimed, nor
held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction in an unappealed
or unappealable decision.
d. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general
designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but
solely to the extent of such participation.
e. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as
part of the IETF Standards Process. These are also referred to as
"IETF Stream Documents" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844.
f. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in
any of the settings described in 1(c) below. The IETF Standards
Process may include participation in activities and publication of
documents that are not directed toward the development of IETF
standards or specifications, such as the development and
publication of informational documents.
g. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means a patent, utility
model, or similar right that may Cover an Implementing Technology,
whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof,
or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
h. "Implementing Technology": means a technology that implements an
IETF specification or standard.
i. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC
Bradner & Contreras [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
Editor processes, as described in RFC xxx.
j. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to
indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
disclosure requirement. But this requirement should not be
interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or
his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
search to find applicable IPR.
k. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF. RFCs are
published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified.
(See [RFC2026] Section 2.1)
2. Introduction
Section 1 defines the terms used in this document. Sections 3, 4 and
5 of this document sets forth the IETF's policies and procedures
relating to IPR. Sections 6 through 12 then explain the rationale for
these provisions. A separate document [RFC5378] deals with rights
(such as copyrights and trademarks) in Contributions, including the
right of IETF and its participants to publish and create derivative
works of those Contributions. This document is not intended to
address those issues.
This document is not intended as legal advice. Readers are advised
to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal
interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF in any
Contributions they make.
3. Contributions to the IETF
3.1. General Policy
In all matters relating to Intellectual Property Rights, the intent
is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while
respecting the legitimate rights of others.
3.2. Rights and Permissions
By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the
Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to agree to
the following terms and conditions, on his or her own behalf, and on
behalf of the organizations the Contributor represents or is
sponsored by (if any) when submitting the Contribution.
Bradner & Contreras [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
A. The Contributor represents that he or she has made or will
promptly make all disclosures required by Section 6.1.1 of this
document.
B. The Contributor represents that there are no limits to the
Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and
agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the
Contributor.
4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received
A The IESG, IAB, ISOC and IETF Trust disclaim any responsibility for
identifying the existence of or for evaluating the applicability
of any IPR, disclosed or otherwise, to any IETF technology,
specification or standard, and will take no position on the
validity or scope of any such IPR.
B When the IETF [position?] has received a notification under
Section 6.1.3 of the existence of non-participant IPR that
potentially Covers a technology under discussion at IETF or which
is the subject of an IETF Document, the IETF [position?] will
request that the identified third party make an IPR disclosure in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6. If such third party
declines to make such a disclosure within a reasonable period of
time, as determined by the IETF xxx, then the IETF xxx may submit
an IPR disclosure identifying such third party IPR, with an
indication that such IPR disclosure is being made based on the
identification of such IPR by an IETF participant other than the
IPR holder.
C When an IPR disclosure has been made as provided in Section 6 of
this document, the IETF Executive Director shall request from the
holder of such IPR, a written assurance that upon approval by the
IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF
specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to
implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
to Implementing Technology under one of the licensing options
specified in Section 6.5.A below unless such a statement has
already been submitted. The working group proposing the use of
the technology with respect to which the Intellectual Property
Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF Executive Director in
this effort.
The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF Document
along the standards track. A working group may take into
consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating the
technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
Bradner & Contreras [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
facilitate obtaining such assurances. The results will, however,
be recorded by the , and be made available online.
D No Determination of Provision of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
Terms
The IESG will not make any determination that any terms for the
use of an Implementing Technology has been fulfilled in practice.
6. IPR Disclosures
This document refers to the IETF participant making disclosures,
consistent with the general IETF philosophy that participants in the
IETF act as individuals. A participant's obligation to make a
disclosure is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner or the
participant's employer or sponsor makes an appropriate disclosure in
place of the participant doing so.
6.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure?
6.1.1. A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution
A Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes
Covers or may ultimately Cover his or her written Contribution
(other than an informational document or other document that is
not intended to be used as an input into the IETF Standards
Process), or which the Contributor reasonably and personally knows
his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing
Technologies based on such written Contribution, must make a
disclosure in accordance with this Section 6.
B An IPR discloser must withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised
Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, and must amend a
previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters
the matters disclosed in a previous disclosure.
6.1.2. An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others
Any individual participating in an IETF discussion or activity who
reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of
Section 6.6 which the individual believes Covers or may ultimately
Cover a written Contribution made by another person, or which such
IETF participant reasonably and personally knows his or her employer
or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such
written Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this
Bradner & Contreras [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
Section 6. For purposes of this memo, "participating in an IETF
discussion or activity" means attending a relevant working group
meeting, subscribing to an IETF mailing list, or otherwise observing
the progress of IETF discussions and deliberations over a particular
Internet-Draft, whether or not actively submitting Contributions or
engaging in the discussion.
6.1.3. IPR of Others
If any person has information about IPR that may Cover a written
Contribution, but such person is not required to disclose such IPR
because it does not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
is not owned or controlled by the person or his or her employer or
sponsor, or such person is not an IETF participant), such person is
encouraged to notify the IETF [position?]. Such a notice should be
sent as soon as reasonably possible after the IETF participant
realizes the connection.
6.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure
Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to
have as much information as they can while they are evaluating
alternative solutions.
6.2.1. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 6.1.1
A The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made
as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is submitted
or made unless the required disclosure is already on file. For
example, if the Contribution is an update to a Contribution for
which an IPR disclosure has already been made and the
applicability of the disclosure is not changed by the new
Contribution, then no new disclosure is required. But if the
Contribution is a new one, or is one that changes an existing
Contribution such that the revised Contribution is no longer
Covered by the disclosed IPR or would be Covered by new or
different IPR, then a disclosure must be made.
B If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that
meets the conditions of Section 6.6, for example a new patent
application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent
portfolio, after the Contribution is published in an Internet-
Draft, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible
after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
Contributor.
C Participants who realize that the making of a Contribution that
will be Covered by IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 is
Bradner & Contreras [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
likely are strongly encouraged to make a preliminary IPR
disclosure. That IPR disclosure should be made as soon after
coming to the realization as reasonably possible, not waiting
until the Contribution is actually posted or ready for posting.
6.2.2. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 6.1.2
The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.2 must be made as
soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is made, unless
the required disclosure is already on file.
Participants who realize that IPR meeting the conditions of Section
6.6 will be or has been incorporated into a Contribution that is
likely, or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are
strongly encouraged to make a preliminary IPR disclosure. That IPR
disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
reasonably possible, not waiting until the Contribution is actually
made.
If an IETF participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions
of Section 6.6 in a Contribution by another party, for example a new
patent application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent
portfolio, after the Contribution was made, an IPR disclosure must be
made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution or IPR
becomes reasonably and personally known to the participant.
6.3. How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made?
IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.
6.4. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure? Updating IPR Disclosures.
6.4.1. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure?
An IPR disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on
unpublished patent applications. The IPR disclosure must also list
the name(s) of the inventors and the specific IETF Document(s) or
activity affected. If the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it
must be referenced by specific version number. 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, the discloser must identify the sections of the
IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered.
6.4.2. Updating IPR Disclosures.
Bradner & Contreras [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
A An IPR disclosure must be updated or a new disclosure made
promptly after any of the following has occurred: the publication
of a previously unpublished patent application, the abandonment of
a patent application and/or the issuance of a patent thereon, a
material change to the IETF Document covered by the Disclosure
that causes the Disclosure to be covered by additional IPR. If a
patent has issued, then the new IPR disclosure must include the
patent number and, if the claims of the granted patent differ from
those of the application in manner material to the relevant
Contribution, the IPR disclosure must describe any differences in
applicability to the Contribution. If the patent application was
abandoned, then the new IPR disclosure must explicitly withdraw
any earlier IPR disclosures based on the application.
B If an IPR holder files foreign counterpart patent applications,
the claims of which are substantially identical to the claims of a
patent or patent application previously disclosed in an IPR
disclosure, the IPR holder is not required to make a new or
updated IPR disclosure as a result of filing such foreign
counterpart applications or the issuance of foreign patents on
such applications. An IPR holder will disclose any foreign
counterpart patent applications and patents relating to the IPR
disclosed in an IPR disclosure upon the request of any IETF
participant.
C An IETF participant must make a new IPR disclosure if he/she
changes employers or sponsors, or if his or her employer or
sponsor acquires the IPR of another company, resulting in a
Contribution being Covered by IPR that was not previously
disclosed against the relevant Contribution, and such IETF
participant reasonably and personally knows of such IPR.
D New or revised IPR disclosures may be made voluntarily at any
other time, provided that no updated IPR disclosure may retract,
revoke or limit any licensing commitment made in an earlier IPR
disclosure.
6.4.3. The requirement to make an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by
the submission of a blanket statement that IPR may exist on every
Contribution or a general category of Contributions. This is the
case because the aim of the disclosure requirement is to provide
information about specific IPR against specific technology under
discussion in the IETF. The requirement is also not satisfied by a
blanket statement of willingness or commitment to license all
potential IPR Covering such technology under fair, reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms for the same reason. However, the
requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by a blanket statement
of the IPR discloser's commitment to license all of its IPR meeting
Bradner & Contreras [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
the requirements of Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2)
to implementers of an IETF specification on a royalty-free (and
otherwise reasonable and non-discriminatory) basis as long as any
other terms and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure.
6.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure
A Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful
if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the
IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license.
Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by
the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF
specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to
implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and
otherwise reasonable and non- discriminatory license, or b) under
a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment,
or c) without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder.
IPR disclosures may also contain details regarding specific
licensing terms that the IPR holder intends to offer to
implementers of Implementing Technologies, including maximum
royalty rates.
B The inclusion of licensing information in IPR disclosures is not
mandatory but it is encouraged so that the working groups will
have as much information as they can during their deliberations.
If the inclusion of licensing information in an IPR disclosure
would significantly delay its submission it is quite reasonable to
submit an IPR disclosure without licensing information and then
submit a new IPR disclosure when the licensing information becomes
available.
C It is likely that IETF participants will rely on licensing
commitments and other information that may be contained in an IPR
disclosure and that they will make technical, legal and commercial
decisions on the basis of such commitments and information. Thus,
when licensing commitments and information are contained in an IPR
disclosure, such commitments and information shall be deemed
irrevocable, and will attach to the associated IPR, and all
implementers of Implementing Technologies will be justified and
entitled to rely on such commitments and information in relating
to such IPR, whether or not it is subsequently transferred to a
third party by the IPR holder making the commitment or providing
such information. IPR holders making IPR disclosures that contain
licensing commitments and information must ensure that such
commitments are binding on any subsequent transferee of the
Bradner & Contreras [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
relevant IPR.
6.6. Level of Control over IPR requiring Disclosure
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.
6.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions. If a Contribution is oral and
is not followed promptly by a written disclosure of the same
material, and if such oral Contribution would be subject to a
requirement that an IPR Disclosure be made had such oral Contribution
been written, then the Contributor must accompany such oral
Contribution with an oral declaration that he/she is aware of
relevant IPR in as much detail as reasonably possible, or file an IPR
Declaration with respect to such oral Contribution that otherwise
complies with the provisions of Sections 6.1 to 6.6 above.
7. Failure to Disclose
7.1. There may be cases in which individuals are not permitted by their
employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance
of patent applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required
for anyone making a Contribution or participating in IETF activities,
a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason,
or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF
activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and
personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not
disclose.
7.2 Contributing to or participating in IETF activities about a
technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
IETF process.
7.3 In addition to any remedies or defenses that may be available to
implementers and others under the law with respect to such a
violation (e.g., rendering the relevant IPR unenforceable), the IESG
may, when it in good faith concludes that such a violation has
occurred, impose penalties including, but not limited to, suspending
the posting/participation rights of the offending individual pursuant
to RFC xxx, suspending the posting/participation rights of other
individuals employed by the same company as the offending individual,
amending, withdrawing or superseding the relevant IETF Documents, and
publicly announcing the facts surrounding such violation, including
the name of the offending individual and his or her employer or
sponsor. See [RFC 6701] for details.
Bradner & Contreras [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups
8.1. In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known
IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion
to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.
8.2. Over the last few years the IETF has adopted stricter requirements
for some security technologies. It has become common to have a
mandatory-to-implement security technology in IETF technology
specifications. This is to ensure that there will be at least one
common security technology present in all implementations of such a
specification that can be used in all cases. This does not limit the
specification from including other security technologies, the use of
which could be negotiated between implementations. An IETF consensus
has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security technology can
be specified in an IETF specification unless it has no known IPR
claims against it or a royalty-free license is available to all
implementers of the specification unless there is a very good reason
to do so. This limitation does not extend to other security
technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as
mandatory-to-implement.
8.3. It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures is not
the same thing as the knowledge that there will be no IPR claims in
the future. People or organizations not currently involved in the
IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be
relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any
time.
8.4. It should also be noted that the validity and enforceability of
any IPR may be challenged for legitimate reasons, and the mere
existence of an IPR disclosure should not automatically be taken to
mean that the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable. Although the
IETF can make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or
applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a
working group will take into account on their own opinions of the
validity, enforceability or applicability of Intellectual Property
Rights in their evaluation of alternative technologies. However,
IETF working group members shall not, as part of any IETF activity,
engage in negotiation of licensing or other commercial terms with any
IPR holder.
9. Change Control for Technologies
Bradner & Contreras [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
The IETF must have change control over the technology described in
any standards track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may
be discovered or to produce other derivative works.
In some cases the developer of patented or otherwise controlled
technology may decide to hand over to the IETF the right to evolve
the technology (a.k.a., "change control"). The implementation of an
agreement between the IETF and the developer of the technology can be
complex. (See [RFC1790] and [RFC2339] for examples.)
Note that there is no inherent prohibition against a standards track
IETF Document making a normative reference to proprietary technology.
For example, a number of IETF Standards support proprietary
cryptographic transforms.
10. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents
RFC 2026 Section 4.1.2 states: "If patented or otherwise controlled
technology is required for implementation, the separate
implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the
licensing process." A key word in this text is "required." The mere
existence of disclosed IPR does not necessarily mean that licenses
are actually required in order to implement the technology.
11. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents
IETF Documents must not contain any mention of specific IPR. All
specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as described in Section 6.
Readers should always refer to the on-line web page to get a full
list of IPR disclosures received by the IETF concerning any
Contribution. (http://www.ietf.org/ipr/)
12. Application to non-IETF Stream Documents
12.1 This memo has been developed for the benefit and use of the IETF
community. As such, the rules set forth herein apply to all
Contributions and IETF Documents that are in the "IETF Document
Stream" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844 (i.e., those that are
contributed, developed, edited and published as part of the IETF
Standards Process). The IAB Document Stream, the IRTF Document
Stream and the Independent Submission Stream, each as defined in
Section 5.1 of RFC 4844 are referred to collectively herein as
"Alternate Streams".
12.2 The legal rules that apply to documents in Alternate Streams are
established by the managers of those Alternate Streams as defined in
RFC 4844. (i.e., the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet
Research Steering Group (IRSG) and Independent Submission Editor).
Bradner & Contreras [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
These managers may elect, through their own internal processes, to
cause this memo to be applied to documents contributed to them for
development, editing and publication in their respective Alternate
Streams. If an Alternate Stream manager elects to adopt this memo,
they must do so in a manner that is public and notifies their
respective document contributors that this memo applies to their
respective Alternate Streams. In such case, each occurrence of the
term "Contribution," and "IETF Document" in this memo shall be read
to mean a contribution or document in such Alternate Stream, as the
case may be. It would be advisable for such Alternate Stream manager
to consider adapting the definitions of "Contribution," and other
provisions in the memo to suit their particular needs.
13. Security Considerations
This memo relates to IETF process, not any particular technology.
There are security considerations when adopting any technology,
whether IPR-protected or not. A working group should take those
security considerations into account as one part of evaluating the
technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no known issues of
security with IPR procedures.
14 Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879
This document combines RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.
Reordered the defined terms
Boilerplate -- since the document boilerplate formerly in BCP79 Sec.
5 has been moved to the Trust Legal Provisions since 2009, deleted
the boilerplate requirements from this document.
Foreign Counterparts -- don't need to file a new IPR disclosure, but
any IETF member can request an IPR holder to disclose foreign
counterparts (in case an implementer needs to know, for example,
if Asia is covered by the disclosed patents -- that info is
generally not easy to get).
Provisional Apps -- suggest that these be required to be disclosed
only if they are filed with claims.
Inventor names -- added words requiring that inventors be listed
along with patent numbers.
Oral statements -- the existing text is internally contradictory.
Some places say that disclosures must be made for oral statements,
but others talk about disclosures only being required following
publication as an ID. Proposed that oral statements don't trigger
Bradner & Contreras [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
the normal IPR disclosure obligations, as oral statements are
inherently imprecise and it's hard to know when they describe
something covered by the technical terms of a patent claim.
However, if an oral contribution is made and it is not followed by
a written contribution, then the oral discloser must either make a
concurrent oral IPR disclosure or file a formal written
disclosure.
Other Contribution Clarification -- suggested a number of other
clarifications to the definition of Contribution that have come up
over the years, including the addition of BOFs.
WG Consideration of Patents -- this is mostly in the existing
language, but added a sentence saying that WGs should not engage
in collective licensing negotiation.
Disclosure of licensing terms is ok -- added a sentence.
Licensing commitments are irrevocable -- added a paragraph.
Lurkers -- this is a complicated issue that runs throughout the
document. At a high level, suggested that lurkers ARE required to
make IPR disclosures, to avoid a Rambus situation.
Penalties -- This paragraph outlining possible sanctions the IESG may
impose should be reconciled with the recent RFC that discusses
penalties.
Updating Disclosures - added a number of clauses to address issues
that have come up over the years, including updating obligations
if an employee changes jobs or his/her employer buys another
company.
Alternate Streams - borrowed and adapted the copyright language used
in the Trust Legal Provisions. Each alternate stream
(Independent, IRTF and IAB) would need to take some action
(preferably issuing an RFC) to adopt BCP 79 for its stream. This
was done with copyright already, and pretty smoothly.
IETF Exec Dir -- flagged the various places where the IETF Exec
Director is supposed to do something under this policy. Not sure
whether these things are getting done today or by whom. Need to
rationalize and update these procedures based on the current admin
structure.
Generally, also tried to cut back some of the historical and
explanatory text that seemed outdated
14. References
Bradner & Contreras [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.
14.2. Informative References
[RFC1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and
Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR
Protocols", RFC 1790, April 1995.
[RFC2339] The Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement
Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun Microsystems, Inc.
in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols", RFC 2339, May 1998.
[RFC5378] Bradner, S. Ed, J. Contreras, Ed, "Rights Contributors
Provide to the IETF Trust", RFC 5378, November 2008
[RFC 6701] Polk, T., and P. Saint-Andre, "Sanctions Available for
Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6702, August
2012
IANA Considerations
This memo requires no action by the IANA. { this section should be
removed for publication]
15. Editor's Addresses
Scott Bradner
Harvard University
1350 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge MA, 02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Jorge Contreras
American University
4801 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20016
Email: cntreras@gmail.com
Bradner & Contreras [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis December 2012
Bradner & Contreras [Page 17]