headers
Bessie Sharp | 9 Mar 2004 07:52
Picon
Favicon

no degree, no problem ssgo

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>GET</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Language content=en-us>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=GENERATOR>

<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<STYLE>DIV.Section1 {
	page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<CENTER>
<TABLE borderColor=#049dd0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=500 bgColor=#ffffff 
border=1>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=top align=left width=500>
      <CENTER>
      <P><FONT size=+0><B>GET<!k> Y<!r>OU<!d>R <!u>UN<!y>I<!b>VE<!j>R<!m>S<!n>I<!q>T<!y>Y<!c> 
      D<!v>I<!c>P<!l>L<!b>O<!t>MA</B><BR><BR><!p><!p>D<!k>o<!r> <!n>yo<!p>u<!m> <!n>wan<!n>t<!s>
<!u>a<!r> <!l>pr<!d>os<!h>p<!j>e<!x>r<!q>o<!w>u<!g>s<!e> 
      fut<!t>ure,<!m> in<!c>cr<!k>ea<!x>s<!z>e<!o>d<!i> <!n>e<!x>a<!u>rn<!l>ing<!g>
p<!d>ow<!z>e<!m>r<!l><BR><!y><!x>m<!t>or<!y>e<!f> m<!z>on<!n>e<!u>y 
an<!w>d<!j> <!z>th<!r>e respec<!b>t<!w> <!e>of a<!x>l<!l>l?<BR><BR><!c>Ca<!b>ll
<!i>t<!s>hi<!g>s<!b> <!c>numbe<!i>r<!q>:<!u>&nbsp; </FONT></P>
            <FONT size=4> 
            <P>1-720-834-2989 </P>
            </FONT>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
George T. Willingmyre | 16 Mar 2004 02:59

IPR policies

Congratulations to all those who did the "heavy lifting" in the RFCs
 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3668.txt?number=3668  Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3667.txt?number=3667    IETF Rights in Contributions 
 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt?number=3669     Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues
I send this note to these two lists with this  link to a page with DRAFT criteria that might be helpful in comparing and contrasting  various IPR policies using some consistent  methodology http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/draftIPRcriteria.htm   It is intended that the criteria thereafter would be used to analyze some of the current major IPR policies around the world
 
It could be that those with lots of experience in these matters might take a look at the draft criteria and offer some improvements.
 
This is not an IETF activity, but a topic I discussed with several folks active in IETF activities who thought the topic was not so far off the beam  that it would be a problem
 
best regards
 
 
 
 
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD 20868
301 421 4138 facsimile 301 421 0977
www.gtwassociates.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 26 Mar 2004 10:43
Picon
Favicon

Operational question

Hi,

So, it's good news that the IPR BCPs are out. I suppose it's
good news that most of the recent mail in the archive for this
list is spam.

However, I see that http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
still contains the boilerplate texts referring to Section 10
of RFC 2026.

I've also seen several recent I-Ds containing a new piece of
boilerplate:

>    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
>    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
>    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
>    RFC 3667.

Now, I have no comment at the moment on whether this is a good or
a bad form of words, but it's clear that the id-guidelines page
needs to be updated.

Who owns this issue?

   Brian
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Contreras, Jorge | 26 Mar 2004 13:57

RE: Operational question

Brian,

At Harald's request, I am preparing a list of places on the 
IETF web site that need to be updated to reflect the new IP
Policy.  Anyone on this list who has additional suggestions
is welcome to contribute them, and we will then submit
the whole list of changes to the maintainer of the site.

Regards,
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:44 AM
To: IPR WG
Subject: Operational question

Hi,

So, it's good news that the IPR BCPs are out. I suppose it's
good news that most of the recent mail in the archive for this
list is spam.

However, I see that http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
still contains the boilerplate texts referring to Section 10
of RFC 2026.

I've also seen several recent I-Ds containing a new piece of
boilerplate:

>    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
>    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
>    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
>    RFC 3667.

Now, I have no comment at the moment on whether this is a good or
a bad form of words, but it's clear that the id-guidelines page
needs to be updated.

Who owns this issue?

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Chuck AdamsJr | 26 Mar 2004 16:34
Picon
Favicon

RE: IETF Operational question


Brian and Jorge, I have been away from the IETF policy documents for a
while, but in a statement as Brian referenced:

>    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
>    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
>    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
>    RFC 3667.

I understand that this includes disclosures under the submitter's control.
Patents and IPR associated with 3rd parties is not included.
Am I correct in this interpretation?  Chuck

Chuck Adams
Program Director of Standards
Intellectual Property & Licensing
IBM Corporation
North Castle Drive, Armonk, New York

(914)-765-4382 [Internal 8/251-4382] Fax (914)-765-4420
Internet: WCADAMS <at> US.IBM.COM

                                                                                                                                         
                      "Contreras, Jorge"                                                                                                 
                      <Jorge.Contreras <at> ha        To:       "Brian E Carpenter" <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>, "IPR WG" <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>          
                      ledorr.com>                cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                   Subject:  RE: Operational question                                                      
                      ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.o                                                                                                
                      rg                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                         
                      03/26/2004 07:57 AM                                                                                                

Brian,

At Harald's request, I am preparing a list of places on the
IETF web site that need to be updated to reflect the new IP
Policy.  Anyone on this list who has additional suggestions
is welcome to contribute them, and we will then submit
the whole list of changes to the maintainer of the site.

Regards,
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:44 AM
To: IPR WG
Subject: Operational question

Hi,

So, it's good news that the IPR BCPs are out. I suppose it's
good news that most of the recent mail in the archive for this
list is spam.

However, I see that http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
still contains the boilerplate texts referring to Section 10
of RFC 2026.

I've also seen several recent I-Ds containing a new piece of
boilerplate:

>    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
>    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
>    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
>    RFC 3667.

Now, I have no comment at the moment on whether this is a good or
a bad form of words, but it's clear that the id-guidelines page
needs to be updated.

Who owns this issue?

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Pekka Savola | 26 Mar 2004 17:04
Picon

RE: IETF Operational question

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Chuck AdamsJr wrote:
> Brian and Jorge, I have been away from the IETF policy documents for a
> while, but in a statement as Brian referenced:
> 
> >    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
> >    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
> >    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
> >    RFC 3667.
> 
> I understand that this includes disclosures under the submitter's control.
> Patents and IPR associated with 3rd parties is not included.
> Am I correct in this interpretation?  Chuck

Read it again. *ANYTHING* you're aware of must be disclosed.  It makes 
no difference whether it has been filed by you or not.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Chuck AdamsJr | 26 Mar 2004 17:23
Picon
Favicon

RE: IETF Operational question


Taking a position on a 3rd party claims can have broad implications.

Chuck Adams
Program Director of Standards
Intellectual Property & Licensing
IBM Corporation
North Castle Drive, Armonk, New York

(914)-765-4382 [Internal 8/251-4382] Fax (914)-765-4420
Internet: WCADAMS <at> US.IBM.COM

                                                                                                                                       
                      Pekka Savola                                                                                                     
                      <pekkas <at> netcore.f        To:       Chuck AdamsJr/Armonk/IBM <at> IBMUS                                                
                      i>                       cc:       "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras <at> haledorr.com>, Brian E Carpenter          
                                                <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>, IPR WG <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>, <ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org>                
                      03/26/2004 11:04         Subject:  RE: IETF Operational question                                                 
                      AM                                                                                                               

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Chuck AdamsJr wrote:
> Brian and Jorge, I have been away from the IETF policy documents for a
> while, but in a statement as Brian referenced:
>
> >    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
> >    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
> >    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
with
> >    RFC 3667.
>
> I understand that this includes disclosures under the submitter's
control.
> Patents and IPR associated with 3rd parties is not included.
> Am I correct in this interpretation?  Chuck

Read it again. *ANYTHING* you're aware of must be disclosed.  It makes
no difference whether it has been filed by you or not.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Scott W Brim | 26 Mar 2004 17:58
Picon
Favicon

Re: IETF Operational question

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 06:04:18PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Chuck AdamsJr wrote:
> > Brian and Jorge, I have been away from the IETF policy documents for a
> > while, but in a statement as Brian referenced:
> > 
> > >    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
> > >    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
> > >    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
> > >    RFC 3667.
> > 
> > I understand that this includes disclosures under the submitter's control.
> > Patents and IPR associated with 3rd parties is not included.
> > Am I correct in this interpretation?  Chuck
> 
> Read it again. *ANYTHING* you're aware of must be disclosed.  It makes 
> no difference whether it has been filed by you or not.

First, it should be RFC 3668, not 3667 (see 3667 section 5.1 for text).

Second, I believe the key is the weaselword "applicable".  The text of
this notice stays general -- it does not say what is applicable.  I do
not know what Chuck means by "associated with", but in any case the
answer to Chuck's question is to refer to 3668, as the text directs.

Finally, Pekka, you are not required to disclose everything you are
aware of, only IPR which is owned directly or indirectly by the
individual and/or employer or sponsor.  The rest is a "should".
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
todd glassey | 26 Mar 2004 16:42
Picon

Re: Operational question

Jorge/Brian/Harald - how do the new amended IPR policies effect already in
place works or works that were in process PRIOR to the changes?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras <at> haledorr.com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com>; "IPR WG" <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:57 AM
Subject: RE: Operational question

Brian,

At Harald's request, I am preparing a list of places on the
IETF web site that need to be updated to reflect the new IP
Policy.  Anyone on this list who has additional suggestions
is welcome to contribute them, and we will then submit
the whole list of changes to the maintainer of the site.

Regards,
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-admin <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:44 AM
To: IPR WG
Subject: Operational question

Hi,

So, it's good news that the IPR BCPs are out. I suppose it's
good news that most of the recent mail in the archive for this
list is spam.

However, I see that http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
still contains the boilerplate texts referring to Section 10
of RFC 2026.

I've also seen several recent I-Ds containing a new piece of
boilerplate:

>    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
>    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
>    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
>    RFC 3667.

Now, I have no comment at the moment on whether this is a good or
a bad form of words, but it's clear that the id-guidelines page
needs to be updated.

Who owns this issue?

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Valerie See (LCA | 26 Mar 2004 18:14
Picon
Favicon

RE: IETF Operational question

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Chuck AdamsJr wrote:
> Brian and Jorge, I have been away from the IETF policy documents for a
> while, but in a statement as Brian referenced:
> 
> >    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
> >    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been
disclosed,
> >    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
with
> >    RFC 3667.
> 
> I understand that this includes disclosures under the submitter's
control.
> Patents and IPR associated with 3rd parties is not included.
> Am I correct in this interpretation?  Chuck

Chuck, as I read Section 6.1.3, "IPR of others" in RFC 3668 (aka 
technology-rights), I would think that your interpretation is right
(though obviously we need Jorge's/Harald's/IESG guidance). The specific
text in 6.1.3 is:

"If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr <at> ietf.org.  Such a
notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
realizes the connection."

In other words, a participant is encouraged to disclose knowledge
of third-party patents but not required to do so, or so I interpret
this. 

Jorge, Harald - is this how this should be read?

thanks, Val See
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane