headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 2 Jun 14:52
Picon

I have requested a 2-hour slot for Chicago

I hope that we'll be able to discuss nearly-final documents in Chicago.

Since booking has to be done early (I was really too late), I've booked a 
2-hour slot for IPR.

              Harald
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 3 Jun 23:54
Picon

Admin note: The IPR design team

A note, just to make sure everyone knows:

This WG has a "design team" consisting of the chairs and the document 
editors + the IETF lawyer + some other people.

The design team's role is not to make decisions (that is the prerogative 
of the WG), but to provide a method for quick exchanges of messages 
between its members.

The team has held no meetings.

The current members are:

Brian Carpenter
Harald Alvestrand
Russ Housley
Joel Halpern
Jorge Contreras
John Klensin
Steve Bellovin
Scott Bradner

The team can be contacted, if desirable, at ipr-dt <at> alvestrand.no.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Don Armstrong | 4 Jun 01:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: Admin note: The IPR design team

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The design team's role is not to make decisions (that is the
> prerogative of the WG), but to provide a method for quick exchanges
> of messages between its members.

Would it be possible to make these messages publicly available so the
drafting process remains as open as possible? [Obviously, there's no
way to stop private exchanges of messages between members, but the
more open these things are, the better.]

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
In all matters of government, the correct answer is usually: "Do
nothing"
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p428

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Thierry Moreau | 5 Jun 15:24

Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

For your information:

In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made 
an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered 
alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. 
I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it 
relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.

Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it 
becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict 
IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.

Conversely, it reinforces the economic incentive for medium and large 
organizations to isolate the individuals participating in the IETF 
activities from the patent application management process.

Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the 
problem area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit 
security model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong 
preference for "ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR") 
when a tradeoff has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope 
and field of application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as 
innovation enhances the networking technology.

Please note that I am not well aware of the detailed procedural and 
institutional arrangements that implement RFC3979, before the appeal 
process can correct deviations. While I was participating in the above 
matter, I chose not to rely on the appeal process, perhaps because it 
wasn't clear to me how things should have gone in the first place.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Scott W Brim | 7 Jun 17:28
Picon
Favicon

Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Working Group should
take technical issues into account just as much as it takes IPR
encumbrance into account.  Is that right?

swb

On 06/05/2007 09:24 AM, Thierry Moreau allegedly wrote:
> For your information:
> 
> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made
> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered
> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management.
> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it
> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
> 
> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it
> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict
> IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
> 
> Conversely, it reinforces the economic incentive for medium and large
> organizations to isolate the individuals participating in the IETF
> activities from the patent application management process.
> 
> Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the
> problem area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit
> security model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong
> preference for "ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR")
> when a tradeoff has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope
> and field of application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as
> innovation enhances the networking technology.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
todd glassey | 7 Jun 17:37
Picon
Favicon

Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

The IPR-WG charter is half the problem here IMHO. The IPR WG needs to be the 
ONLY PLACE within the IETF that IPR and Participation Control issues are 
addressed. They do not belong in the IETF <at> IETF.ORG WG since they are 
pertinent to IPR issues directly.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <sbrim <at> cisco.com>
To: "Thierry Moreau" <thierry.moreau <at> connotech.com>
Cc: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg 
and IESG

> If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Working Group should
> take technical issues into account just as much as it takes IPR
> encumbrance into account.  Is that right?
>
> swb
>
> On 06/05/2007 09:24 AM, Thierry Moreau allegedly wrote:
>> For your information:
>>
>> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made
>> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered
>> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management.
>> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it
>> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 8 Jun 09:07
Picon

Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

On 2007-06-05 15:24, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> For your information:
> 
> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made 
> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered 
> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. 
> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it 
> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
> 
> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it 
> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict 
> IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.

Our rules have allowed WGs to choose to favor unencumbered solutions
for many years. You'd have to be much more specific about what
you mean by 'a priori' to explain why you think this is a precedent.

       Brian
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 8 Jun 13:32
Picon

Patent policy and this mailing list (Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG)

Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF ipr wg charter; 
> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
Actually getting the WG to do something to change what RFC 3979 says 
would require a change to the WG's charter.

I believe arguing for such a charter change is within scope for the 
mailing list, but only if new information has come to light since the 
last time the issue was raised; it would take a *very* strong argument 
to convince me, at least, to take on such a task before the WG is 
finished with its current tasks.

Harald
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lucy Lynch | 8 Jun 23:52

Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2007-06-05 15:24, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>> For your information:
>> 
>> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made an 
>> a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered 
>> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. I 
>> spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it 
>> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
>> 
>> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it 
>> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict IETF 
>> activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
>
> Our rules have allowed WGs to choose to favor unencumbered solutions
> for many years. You'd have to be much more specific about what
> you mean by 'a priori' to explain why you think this is a precedent.

a bit of catch up for those who aren't following DNSSEC

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05465.html
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
  http://www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05527.html

>      Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 11 Jun 01:14
Picon

Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

I must admit I'm lost here.

All the dates I can find are:

- November 20, 2006: draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements-04 published
- February 26, 2007: draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming published
- March 19, 2007: DNS resolver priming discussed in Prague @DNSOP
- April 19, 2007: Patent request filed in Canada
- April 20, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-00 is published
- May 9, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 is published
- May 10, 2007: Thierry Moreau informally discloses existence of IPR
- June 5, 2007: Thierry Moreau formally discloses existence of patent 
applciation

Unless time travel is involved, I cannot see any way the current existence 
of the patent application filed in April 2007 can have influenced the draft 
published in November 2006.

What have I failed to understand?

                 Harald

--On 8. juni 2007 14:52 -0700 Lucy Lynch <llynch <at> civil-tongue.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On 2007-06-05 15:24, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>>> For your information:
>>>
>>> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane