headers
Steve Bellovin | 1 Apr 2003 02:55
Picon

Repost: "Hum" -- should we recharter now? (fwd)

Below is a message that I posted to the list on 26 March.  Again, I 
encourage *everyone* on this list to express their preference.  The two 
week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.

--------

We're just about done with the three "clarifications" documents.  We 
now need to decide if we're going to recharter.  The purpose of a 
rechartered IPR working group would be to devise a substantial change 
in the IETF's IPR policy.  One possible new IPR policy would be some 
form of mandatory royalty-free terms; at this point, though, exactly 
what such a new policy would be is not under discussion.

The very simple question I'm posing is this:

	Should the IPR working group recharter at this time to devise
	a substantially new IPR policy?

This question is being posed pursuant to Section 3.3 of RFC 2418.  Note 
in particular the following two paragraphs:

   It can be particularly challenging to gauge the level of consensus on
   a mailing list.  There are two different cases where a working group
   may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list
   discussion. But in both cases the volume of messages on a topic is
   not, by itself, a good indicator of consensus since one or two
   individuals may be generating much of the traffic.

   In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face-  
   to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Peterson, Jon | 1 Apr 2003 03:15
Favicon

RE: Repost: "Hum" -- should we recharter now? (fwd)

No, we should not recharter at this time.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Bellovin [mailto:smb <at> research.att.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:56 PM
> To: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Repost: "Hum" -- should we recharter now? (fwd)
> 
> 
> Below is a message that I posted to the list on 26 March.  Again, I 
> encourage *everyone* on this list to express their 
> preference.  The two 
> week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.
> 
> 
> --------
> 
> We're just about done with the three "clarifications" documents.  We 
> now need to decide if we're going to recharter.  The purpose of a 
> rechartered IPR working group would be to devise a substantial change 
> in the IETF's IPR policy.  One possible new IPR policy would be some 
> form of mandatory royalty-free terms; at this point, though, exactly 
> what such a new policy would be is not under discussion.
> 
> The very simple question I'm posing is this:
> 
> 	Should the IPR working group recharter at this time to devise
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bertine, Herbert V (Herbert | 1 Apr 2003 04:25
Picon
Favicon

RE: Repost: "Hum" -- should we recharter now? (fwd)

I say no.

Herb

> ----------
> From: 	Steve Bellovin[SMTP:smb <at> research.att.com]
> Sent: 	Monday, March 31, 2003 7:55 PM
> To: 	ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: 	Repost: "Hum" -- should we recharter now? (fwd)
> 
> Below is a message that I posted to the list on 26 March.  Again, I 
> encourage *everyone* on this list to express their preference.  The two 
> week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.
> 
> 
> --------
> 
> We're just about done with the three "clarifications" documents.  We 
> now need to decide if we're going to recharter.  The purpose of a 
> rechartered IPR working group would be to devise a substantial change 
> in the IETF's IPR policy.  One possible new IPR policy would be some 
> form of mandatory royalty-free terms; at this point, though, exactly 
> what such a new policy would be is not under discussion.
> 
> The very simple question I'm posing is this:
> 
> 	Should the IPR working group recharter at this time to devise
> 	a substantially new IPR policy?
> 
> This question is being posed pursuant to Section 3.3 of RFC 2418.  Note
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Zenaan Harkness | 1 Apr 2003 05:25

Re: Repost: "Hum" -- should we recharter now? (fwd)

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 11:55, Steve Bellovin wrote:
> Below is a message that I posted to the list on 26 March.  Again, I 
> encourage *everyone* on this list to express their preference.  The two 
> week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.

Was there not enough concensus to reword the question posed? No point me
reposting the arguments. I thought there was some buy in for that. If
appropriate I or someone can rethread the post (again). ??
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Steven M. Bellovin | 1 Apr 2003 06:02
Picon

wording change

In message <1049167543.642.7.camel <at> zen8100a>, Zenaan Harkness writes:
>On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 11:55, Steve Bellovin wrote:
>> Below is a message that I posted to the list on 26 March.  Again, I 
>> encourage *everyone* on this list to express their preference.  The two 
>> week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.
>
>Was there not enough concensus to reword the question posed? No point me
>reposting the arguments. I thought there was some buy in for that. If
>appropriate I or someone can rethread the post (again). ??
>

I could repost my own response, from 28 March, but for now I'll simply 
restate that the question I asked is more or less required by the 
charter, which says:

   If there consensus of the working group for a different IPR policy
   than the one described in RFC 2026, the working group will seek to
   amend its charter to make it clear that it is changing the status quo.

It's reasonable to ask other questions as well, but for maximum clarity 
we want one "hum" at a time.  (We're holding off on wg last calls until 
this one is over, for the exact same reason.)

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 1 Apr 2003 07:48
Picon

Re: wording change

to reinforce what Steve is saying:

yes, we (the IETF community, not just this mailing list) need to think 
about ways to move forward that make the IPR issue easier to deal with for 
developers and users of standards and implementing products.

I think there are a number of things we can do to approach this problem - 
rechartering this WG to create a different policy is just one of the 
options. But it's an option where the question is in the charter, the 
answer from the physical meeting was pretty clear, and where we need to 
confirm the consensus on the mailing list.

My personal opinion is that the "best" next step for making life easier is 
best carried out outside the WG process, and doesn't involve changing IETF 
rules at all - but that's only one man's opinion.

                 Harald

--On mandag, mars 31, 2003 23:02:24 -0500 "Steven M. Bellovin" 
<smb <at> research.att.com> wrote:

> In message <1049167543.642.7.camel <at> zen8100a>, Zenaan Harkness writes:
>> On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 11:55, Steve Bellovin wrote:
>>> Below is a message that I posted to the list on 26 March.  Again, I
>>> encourage *everyone* on this list to express their preference.  The two
>>> week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.
>>
>> Was there not enough concensus to reword the question posed? No point me
>> reposting the arguments. I thought there was some buy in for that. If
>> appropriate I or someone can rethread the post (again). ??
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pekka Savola | 3 Apr 2003 20:47
Picon

A thought about a possible new policy

Hi,

People have asked to see ideas for new IPR policies.  Well, here's one 
half-baked idea.

First, my assumption/belief is that many companies see IETF's IPR policy
as rather flexible (after all, it gives power to w.g.'s to make
determinations etc.) -- at least in theory.

So, here comes the idea: we need to make the IETF look more rigid in the
IPR policy while retaining some form of well-controlled flexibility to
cover for the cases it may be required.  In addition, we need to work on 
reasonable RF terms and/or templates to make RF licensing as easy and 
non-controversial as possible for all parties.

Why rigidity?  We need to ensure that IETF's overall IPR policy stays 
quite strict, and exceptions stay as exceptions; also, this gives a signal 
to the companies that cashing on IPR will be unsuccessful.

Why controlled flexibility?  Complete RF policy would likely require too
many changes.  And there are cases that need to be dealt with: DoS
attacks, blanket statements, truly important exceptions when no
alternatives exist (e.g. prior patents on all public key infrastructure)  
which need to be considered, etc.

Why RF templates?  W.g.'s must have some idea that when some company 
offers RF licensing, one can more or less trust that; licensing RF should 
also be as simple to the company as possible.

Therefore, an idea occurred to me:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Spencer Dawkins | 3 Apr 2003 23:37
Picon
Favicon

Re: A thought about a possible new policy

Dear Pekka,

Speaking only for myself, you may be batting .500 on this
thought:

--- Pekka Savola <pekkas <at> netcore.fi> wrote:
> 
> Therefore, an idea occurred to me:
> 
> 1. For all technologies where essential patents and RF terms
> are not 
> available, after IESG review (but before publication) the
> issue is given 
> to IAB.  IAB will determine whether the specification is so
> important it 
> requires standardization anyway.  IAB may be assisted in this
> decision by 
> at least a 2-week long IPR last call.

This is WAY too late in the process for a surprise. The
Problem-Statement working group is already worried about late
surprises. This part of your idea adds a potential late surprise
to the END of the process. I hummm "no" on this half.

> 
> 2. For all technologies where relevant patents and RF terms
> are not 
> available, an IETF last call is always required.  Such last
> calls formats 
> are modified so that it clearly states the status of the IPR
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 4 Apr 2003 15:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: A thought about a possible new policy

Indeed, in the past our legal advice was always to keep the IETF
out of the business of judging the acceptability of licensing
conditions, or the essentiality of patents. There are
many risks along that path.

That being said, and accepting Spencer's point about it being
late in the process, being explicit about the existence of IPR
claims in Last Call messages does seem reasonable to me.

  Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 
> Dear Pekka,
> 
> Speaking only for myself, you may be batting .500 on this
> thought:
> 
> --- Pekka Savola <pekkas <at> netcore.fi> wrote:
> >
> > Therefore, an idea occurred to me:
> >
> > 1. For all technologies where essential patents and RF terms
> > are not
> > available, after IESG review (but before publication) the
> > issue is given
> > to IAB.  IAB will determine whether the specification is so
> > important it
> > requires standardization anyway.  IAB may be assisted in this
> > decision by
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pekka Savola | 4 Apr 2003 16:42
Picon

Re: A thought about a possible new policy

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > Therefore, an idea occurred to me:
> > 
> > 1. For all technologies where essential patents and RF terms are not
> > available, after IESG review (but before publication) the issue is
> > given to IAB.  IAB will determine whether the specification is so
> > important it requires standardization anyway.  IAB may be assisted in
> > this decision by at least a 2-week long IPR last call.
> 
> This is WAY too late in the process for a surprise. The
> Problem-Statement working group is already worried about late
> surprises. This part of your idea adds a potential late surprise
> to the END of the process. I hummm "no" on this half.

I completely agree it's too late.  But late is better than never.  You
typically do not have knowledge of IPR at hand when e.g. forming working
groups.

In practice, this would be pre-emptive: WG's would start looking real hard
into these issues early on *because they'd know that it would have a
potential for causing serious delays and much more work when "finished"*
if they didn't -- which was indeed one reason for this kind of mechanism:  
prevent the problem from happening in the first place.

> > 2. For all technologies where relevant patents and RF terms are not
> > available, an IETF last call is always required.  Such last calls
> > formats are modified so that it clearly states the status of the IPR
> > claims and associated facts, so that those who have issues with this
> > can notice it easily and comment if appropriate.
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane