SM | 18 Dec 09:39 2013

RE: Normatively referenced specifications

Hi David,
At 15:43 17-12-2013, Black, David wrote:
>I'm concerned - at an abstract level, this question appears to be
>headed towards applying the IETF's IPR policy to standards developed
>by other standards organizations by virtue of IETF documents
>containing normative references to such standards.


>I suspect that the IETF could be rather uncomfortable being on the
>receiving end of another standards organization doing that to
>our standards (applying their IPR policy to IETF standards courtesy
>of normative references in their standards).  I might suggest that
>a useful criterion for application of IETF's IPR policy to a standard
>developed by another organization could be (re)publication of that
>document as an IETF standard (to which the IETF IPR policy would
>then be clearly applicable).  There are situations in which the
>same standard is published by IETF and another standards organization.

The republication might cause other problems as you then have two 
specifications.  There may be a divergence between the two 
specifications in the far future.  As mentioned above the IETF might 
be uncomfortable if it was at the receiving end.

>I will also observe that as a participant in multiple standards
>organizations across which normative references and collaborative
>standards development activity occurs, one IPR policy per organization
>is quite enough to deal with ... really ;-).

(Continue reading)

SM | 17 Dec 09:58 2013

Normatively referenced specifications

At 21:11 16-12-2013, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>(1) None of the IETF policy documents contain an explicit requirement for
>disclosure against normatively referenced specs.
>(2) At least in the area of IPR encumbered media codec specs being
>normatively referenced by IETF documents (mandatory or optional), there is
>no history of IPR disclosures.  The majority of IETF documents that
>normatively reference media coding specs are RTP payload formats--an area
>I¹m very familiar with.  There is not a single IPR disclosure against the
>media codec technology itself that I¹m aware of in any disclosures related
>to payload formats.  That is despite the fact that the majority of payload

I am quoting part of a message from Stephan 
Wenger to ask about the interpretation regarding 
IPR disclosures about normatively referenced 
specifications.  For what it is worth, I reviewed 
a draft from a working group in the RAI area 
recently.  The draft was written to address an 
interoperability problem affecting a 
technology.  The specification for that 
technology was not referenced.  I didn't read 
other RFCs from RAI to see whether that was the practice in the area.

One of the basic principles regarding claims about IPR is as follows:

   "in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
    the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
    of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
    group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
    Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may
(Continue reading)

Stephan Wenger | 13 Aug 18:19 2013

RFC3979bis section 7 -- hierarchy of preference for licensing

Hi all,

In Berlin's IPR BOF, one of the topics discussed was language in section 7.  I had specific comments, and was asked to provide input on the list.  In the process of composing my input, I noted that a section 7 has a number of issues that could benefit from clarifications or modifications that go beyond editorial input.  I had some private discussions with Scott and Jorge, and was asked by them to provide input on a few major (non-editorial) topics the list.  This is the first of a series of emails all concerning this section.

To set context, section 7 is arguably one of the more important sections in the RFC3979, because it covers the application of the IETF IPR policy in the day-to-day operations of the IETF.  The title of the section is "Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups".  It explains, among other things, how working groups can react to received IPR disclosures.  (Note that RFC3979 covers only WGs, and not other IETF bodies, such as the IESG or individuals ADs or whatever-none of these are currently mentioned-but I believe that Jorge and Scott will fix that bug in the next revision).

This post is about the first sentence of RFC 3979, which reads:

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.

I propose to replace this sentence with:

In general, to solve a given problem, the IETF prefers technologies with no known IPR over technologies with IPR claim(s) against them.  With respect to technologies with IPR claim(s) against them, the IETF prefers open-source-friendly non-assert terms over reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty-free terms (RAND-Z), over technologies offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms but possibly incurring royalties (RAND), over technologies with IPR against them where the terms are non-RAND or, in the worst case, where the IPR is declared as being not licensable.

I believe that the above change reflects reality in the IETF at large as of 2013, and obviously only to the point I have insight.  I believe that the RFC3979 text does not reflect reality as of 2013.

The perhaps most important change is to acknowledge the existence of a (free and) open source ecosystem which, in at least some cases, has difficulties in accepting technologies for which bi-lateral licenses need to be signed, regardless of whether those licenses are royalty-free or not or whether unlicensed use of the technology generally is tolerated even if it were against the text of the disclosure. Let me also note that we have (moderately) recent examples of IETF RFCs with IPR claims that cover all categories mentioned above, including the final one.

The list of categories could easily be extended, especially with respect to the broad "open-source friendly non-assert" part.  However, doing so meaningfully would quite likely require references to licensing schemes supported by certain open source "camps", and I do not believe that the IETF needs to go down to that granularity, nor could I stand the flame wars that would likely break out.  So I tried to keep it simple by saying that there is something "better" from an adoption viewpoint than RANDZ, but "worse" than IPR-claim-free, without going into details.

I also stayed away from defining "RAND".  I mentioned RAND a because the vast majority of IETF disclosures mention RAND for reasons that are known to the disclosers, the requirement for reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing is commonly believe to offer some protection, even if the amount of protection offered is currently unclear, and because RAND is a requirement for normative down referencing to many other SDOs.  I do not believe that the cumulative expertise of this list has the expertise--let alone the authority--to define the term RAND.

Thanks for your consideration of my proposal.


Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at>
Russ Housley | 2 Aug 10:48 2013

IETF 87 IPRbis BOF evaluation

I attended the IPRbis BOF.  The idea is to update the BCPs to incorporate experience from the last 8 years.  Jorge Contreras and Scott Bradner had a list of proposed changes, and they were each discussed in turn.  The discussion was much more calm than the discussion in Orlando, but this calmness did not allow review of all of proposed changes.  As a result, the BOF ended without a real conclusion.  By impression is that the I-D will be updated based on the ones that were discussed, and that discussion is needed on the remaining proposed changes.

I'd recommend a thread on each proposed change on the ipr-wg <at> so that there is a hope of getting this stuff done before the end of 2013.
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at>
tsg | 21 Jun 21:02 2013

IPR Problems - Re: [Geopriv] IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements

On 06/21/2013 07:34 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Several IPR disclosures were filed against a GEOPPRIV document,
draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements, which is now in IESG review:
 Please send comments to the list by Friday, 28 June if you have concerns related to these IPR disclosures.
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv <at>

The IPR system is an issue - there are already numerous IPR filings 
which would clearly apply to this same filing and the need to formally 
update them or add new IPR linkages is an issue. Mine for instance 
relative to our rights on the shared-use US6370629 patent.

Todd Glassey


// Standard "perasonal email" disclaimers apply
tsg | 21 May 22:35 2013

The IPR filing form has a flaw... Patent Assignee's dont always control or have licensing authority on them.

  The IPR filing form assumes that the Party the Patent in the filing is 
assigned to also controls the licensing and that is not always true.  
dTo that end - some form of notation or role-specific type statement 
needs to be created for this form as well to meet this specific (and 
more and more common) situation.

Todd Glassey
johnsonhammond1 | 27 Apr 19:47 2013

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.

We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware

Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without 
any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a 
payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the 
fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman 
of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from 
WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. 

We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts 
to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP.  DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped 
indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See for of one of the 
conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of for comments from well-known researchers 

The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific
to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than 
having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever!

Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, 
using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing 
out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published 
in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) 
who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using 
fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences
to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to 
threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). 
That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published 
at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. 

Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has 
refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image 
being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 
is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. 

The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee 
members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact 
details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! 

Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for 
all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal 
the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many 
papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at 
the Open Challenge (Section 6) at 

Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop 
this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. 

We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities   Search Google using the 
keyword worldcomp fake for additional links.

Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at>
Brian E Carpenter | 26 Apr 21:44 2013

Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?


A case has just occurred of the following sequence:

1. A draft is posted that contains an algorithm;
2. A corresponding IPR disclosure is posted;
3. After WG discussion, the draft is updated with the algorithm removed.

What next? The IPR disclosure is still there. Normally, we assume
that the disclosure remains relevant to following versions of the
draft without being re-posted each time. (In fact, do we even expect
a repeat disclosure for the eventual RFC? I don't think so.)

Is there a need for a formal rule for this case?

And what should the IPR holder do now? If they do nothing, the
updated draft might be assumed to be encumbered.

(FYI the draft is draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing
and the disclosure is .)

tsg | 15 Apr 19:16 2013

Q: do we have any IETF Publication Mirror and Mailing List Retention Requirements.

In regard to IETF Mailing List Archives and WG operations... what is the 
period of retention? Also is it possible this needs to also apply to the 
document mirrors?

So there are some issues we need to pull out and put on the list of 
things we need to deal with in IETF participation. The issue I want to 
bring up here pertains to RECORD RETENTION and AVAILABILITY POLICY for 
both the submissions and for the WG Mirrors.

Documents and Mailing Lists must be retained for seven years (7 years)
As to why there are legal tax issues for needing to prove participation 
in the IETF and so since as much as  75% of its participants today (we 
figure it actually may be higher) from the commercial world are using 
tax write-downs under employee benefits to support IETF costing, so the 
ability to prove that participation for the full tax-document retention 
period just became a real issue.

What does this mean for WG's who outsource that? -
My gut level from the real world is that means that the WG's initial 
founders and its Sponsors are probably still liable and its their 
management and possibly any external sponsors therein who hold that 

I could be totally wrong but I dont think so. If that is true then to 
support this need for retention any WG which is maintained outside of 
the main IETF Web Profile through its own email archive and service.

The issue is of course  how the legal integrity of that data is 
maintained in a world where its so important to be right that fraud is a 
simple issue to justify that being right.

Any thoughts?

Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh | 9 Apr 20:10 2013

Participation, provisionals and FRAND

Hi Jorge and Scott,


Thank you for your latest revisions.


I like the changes in Section 1.k.  I think that the phrase “in any other way acting in order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the IETF Standards Process” is an appropriate way to get at the true purpose of defining participation.  There has been some discussion on whether or not just passively attending all or part of a meeting should be deemed participation.  While I can certainly see both sides of this argument, I am leaning in favor of the language you proposed.  It has been my experience that sometimes those who passively attend do indeed gather information and may speak about this with others after the meeting and either intentionally or unintentionally influence opinions and outcomes.   


With respect to the revision in Section 1.d, I like the inclusion of provisional patent application in the “Covers” definition.  I am of the opinion in a standards setting that the more information regarding essential patents, the better.  Granted the provisional may not in the end be essential, but we have that same issue now with applications where the claims are significantly amended during prosecution.


With respect to the FRAND question, I am in favor of having some type of minimum FRAND commitment.  I do believe it would help the diffusion of IETF standards and would for all practical purposes formalize the practice of most participants in the IETF.  It makes for a great deal of uncertainty if a participant does not make such a commitment. 







Dale G. Mohlenhoff                                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.

Senior Corporate Counsel                                           170 West Tasman Drive

                                                                                                San Jose, CA  95134-1706

dmohlenh <at>

Direct:     +1.408.525.9589

Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003


This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.


Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at>
SM | 9 Apr 18:49 2013

Re: normative reference within a Contribution

Hi Ted,
At 08:08 09-04-2013, Ted Hardie wrote:
>The two points of view seem to me have two very different starting 
>points.  One starting point is "The IETF disclosures should tell you 
>about any IPR the participants believed covered what you need to 
>implement the technology described."  and the other is "The IETF 
>disclosures should tell you about any IPR the participants believed 
>covers the technology developed within the IETF contexts."

Thanks for attempting to summarize the points.  Although the 
normative reference question is relevant I think that it looks at the 
issue from an incorrect angle.  I would simplify the question as follows:

   Does the contribution cover any Implementing Technology which 
would require an
   IPR disclosure? [1]

The question of whether the reference is normative or informative, or 
whether the document references a technology developed outside an 
IETF context can be side-stepped.

BTW, the audience for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04 is also IETF 
participants.  Some people will not understand the question being 
asked if it is not simplified.


1. I did not try to come up with a properly phrased question.