Subject: [payload] (no subject)

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:33:53 +0200

Hi,
 
The document write-up template for sending documents to publication has
changed.  In particular, we need to poll authors on their compliance with
IETF IPR rules prior to moving a document to the publication in the WG
process. See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html question 7.
 
We plan to send the following email when a WG document goes to WG last call.

Please let us know if you have any comments on this plan.
 
Roni Even
AVTCore and Payload co-chair
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
To: <list all authors and contributors>
Cc: AD; AVTcore/Payload WG
 
Subject: Regarding IPR on <insert document name>
 
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to <insert document name>? If so,
has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs
3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?
 
If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR.  This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author and listed
contributor.
 
If you are on the AVTcore/payload WG email list but are not listed as an
author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR
rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of
others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any
contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR.  For more
information, please see the RFCs listed above and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:03:09 +0000

Hi,
There are many cases, where the answer to the first question is Yes, the answer to the second question is No, and people would still be in compliance with the assorted policy RFCs.  The reason is that disclosure is not required in many cases; for example, when the IPR in question is not owned by them or their employers.

Suggest that the second question should be something like:
"

If so,

has this IPR been disclosed when so required for in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs

"

Stephan

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:33:53 +0200
To: 'IETF AVTCore WG' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [AVTCORE] (no subject)

Hi,

The document write-up template for sending documents to publication has changed.  In particular, we need to poll authors on their compliance with IETF IPR rules prior to moving a document to the publication in the WG process. See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html question 7.

Roni Even

contributor.

If you are on the AVTcore/payload WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR.  For more information, please see the RFCs listed above and

_______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:52:45 +0200

Hi Stephan,

Thanks for the text, I will use it.

Roni

From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:03 PM
To: Roni Even; 'IETF AVTCore WG'; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund'
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] (no subject)

Hi,

There are many cases, where the answer to the first question is Yes, the
answer to the second question is No, and people would still be in compliance
with the assorted policy RFCs.  The reason is that disclosure is not
required in many cases; for example, when the IPR in question is not owned
by them or their employers.  

"

If so,
has this IPR been disclosed when so required for in compliance with IETF IPR
rules (see RFCs
3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

"

Stephan

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:33:53 +0200
To: 'IETF AVTCore WG' <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund' <[email-masked]>
Subject: [AVTCORE] (no subject)

Hi,

 
 
Roni Even

 

 

_______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:03:04 -0400

> Thanks for the text, I will use it.

I recommend you do not, for a few reasons:

1. You may not rewrite the PROTO template; that belongs to the IESG.

2. The question was worded as it is for a reason, and it should be
left that way.  The IESG wants to know whether there are any known IPR
claims, whether declarations have been made to and considered by the
working group, and whether formal IPR statements have been filed in
the system.  The middle one is as important as the last.

3. Stephan is incorrect when he says this:
> The reason is that disclosure is not

If you are aware of IPR that you do not own, you may and you should
make a third-party disclosure.

You may, of course, ask the question of your working group in any way
you like.  But I suggest you ask it in a way that allows you to
accurately answer the question asked in the PROTO template.

Barry, incoming Applications AD

> -------- Original Message --------

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:09:09 +0000

Hi Barry,

Adding the IPRWG and ietf@ietf.

For the benefit if "new" readers: This is about an updated proto shepherd
writeup template, asking two questions about IPR that, IMO may not be in
compliance with the IETF's IPR policy.

I was not aware that the proto template had IESG blessing.  Still, I
believe that the template text does not ask the right question, or, more
specifically, is a suggestive question in that it appears (at least to me)
to interpret the IETF's patent policy in a considerably more strict way
than it is set out in the policy RFCs.
I believe the IESG should reconsider the proto writeup.
A few more comments inline

>1. You may not rewrite the PROTO template; that belongs to the IESG.

Agreed (now that I'm aware of that this is an IESG-sanctioned template).

>the system.  The middle one is as important as the last.

Also agreed (with caveats, see below).

>make a third-party disclosure.

Barry, please read my language carefully.  Perhaps I should have
capitalized REQUIRED, but the text is clear and inline with yours.  It's
MAY and SHOULD for third party disclosures.  But you are NOT *required* to
do so by policy; there is no MUST.  There are many good and valid reasons
why there is no MUST (beyond that it's not in the policy docs).  And,
third party disclosures are not even a widely used current practice.  Just
look at the (comparatively low) number of third party disclosures.

Look, I do patent work as my day job.  I also do standards work  In my
current and previous job roles, I have looked at hundreds of patents of my
current or previous employers, as well as occasionally at third party
patents.  Now, with this background, let's look at the template text again
(numerals by me):

   (1) Are you aware of any IPR that applies to <insert document name>?
(2) If so,
   has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs
3979, 
   4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)?

For the majority of the documents I am working on, the answer to question
(1) would be yes.  The answer to question (2) would be quite often no.

Based on my interpretation of the policy RFCs, I am in full compliance
with language and spirit of the policy.  I'm not doing anything fishy.  I
just don't talk about third party IPR, which is my right under the IETF's
IPR policy.  However, by providing answers to questions (1) and (2), the
IESG would receive a signal that it is not entitled to receive (more
precisely: that I'm not required to send, and not willing to send
voluntarily, as it could get me personally into trouble), namely that
there may be patents related to a document which the discloser is not
willing, AND not obligated, to talk about.

This is a policy change through the backdoor.  Policy changes through the
backdoor are bad.

My suggestion was aimed to bring the template in compliance with what I
believe is language and spirit of the policy.

Thanks,
Stephan

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:59:13 +0100

Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]> writes:

> IPR policy.

RFC 3669 section 5.7:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3669#section-5.7

says for example

   It is good to notify the IETF of relevant IPR claims even when they
   are not one's own, and [6] says to do so "as soon as possible".

My interpretation has always been that partcipants are strongly
encouraged to notify about third party patents.  Withholding such
information seems contrary to the spirit even if not the letter of the
guidelines.

There are additional advice given here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3669#section-5.7.1

/Simon