Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Russ
Yes your initial reply got stuck in Earthlink's mail - but
what I was saying 
is that its not that you personally needed detail to file
the notice of 
impending IPR issues with the IETF, and that was my point. 
It seems that 
just knowing that there was a provisional filed should be
enough.

---

BTW - its not personal of course you are a wizard and I
applaud that, but 
it is an issue with that there isn't a recovery or response
process/policy 
inside the IPR framework or inside the IETF as a whole, and
in fact based on 
the IPR Outgoing Rights and those codified to date there is
no possible fix 
for an IPR Rule violation...

So my take on this is that the real issue is that there
isn't any real 
possible response with the current IETF licensing model. The
real controls 
would have to be defined as to what responses were necessary
PRIOR to the 
OUTGOING RIGHTS and LICENSE Document being crafted since
these would be the 
constraints that it would have to support and implement the

control-processes for.

---

What I mean by that is that currently the IETF cannot stop a
document's 
circulation once published, and that means that it doesn't
really matter 
what IPR policies the IETF has in place since they can never
be used to 
correct an infraction of IPR policy by pulling a document
which was 
published by the I-D and RFC Editor Desks which violated US
or other IP Laws 
and the IETF's policies as such.

In fact since the IETF is well aware of the fact that
once-published, no 
document can ever be removed from circulation, its
intentional prevention of 
the implementation of a process to address this in the IP
Rights frameworks 
may in fact mean that the IETF and its officers still bear
the liabilities 
for "ANY and ALL" damages here, and I thought that
this was something that 
the IETF management wanted to 'fix' as it were.

The math is simple...

1)    Any document published under the "For any and All
Uses without any 
restrictions" caveat is mechanically out of the control
of the IETF once 
done, and as long as the derivative and republishing
requirements are met, 
it doesn't matter what or who is demanding that the IETF
recover and prevent 
the distribution of those medias, because it will be
functionally 
impossible.

2)    Since there are no controls which can pull a document
from circulation 
the management of the IETF bears all responsibility for any
damages that 
occur as such - since they have full knowledge that there
system 
intentionally sets aside those common controls that any sane

Copyright-Upholding entity would put in place immediately to
protect itself.

This is simple procedural methodology... and the IETF needs
to address this 
in both its Outgoing Rights document and in the Submission
Document which 
also needs a 'hold harmless' clause in which the Submitters
and their 
Sponsor's indemnify through the Submissions Process, the
IETF for its 
actions as the submitter's publication agent for the IP's

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <housleyvigilsec.com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglasseyearthlink.net>; "Dean Anderson"
<deanav8.com>
Cc: "Mark Brown" <markredphonesecurity.com>;
<ietfietf.org>; 
<iesgietf.org>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: 
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

> Todd:
>
> This is a follow-on note.  Did you miss the earlier
one, where I said:
> >
> > I was aware that Mark Brown was working on a
patent; however, I did not
> > begin working with him until after his provisional
patent
> application was filed.
> > I did not see the claims until the filing became
public.
> >
> > Since I knew that a patent was in the works, but I
did not know the 
> > details,
> > at the time we submitted the -00  draft to the
repository (which was
> > February 2006), I reminded Mark Brown that an IPR
statement might be
> > necessary.
>
> Without seeing the claims, I could not know whether or
not an IPR 
> statement was required.  Thus, the reminder to my
coauthor was the 
> appropriate action on my part.
>
> Russ
>
>
> At 12:23 PM 4/9/2007, todd glassey wrote:
>>Russ - this isn't about Financial Interests its
about the need to formally 
>>disclose something that you are uniquely aware of
that the rest of the 
>>IETF isn't. That makes you liable IMHO for any
damages someone suffers 
>>because of this failure to disclose. And since you
are a IETF Manager its 
>>worse.
>>
>>Todd Glassey
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ
Housley" <housleyvigilsec.com>
>>To: "Dean Anderson" <deanav8.com>
>>Cc: "Mark Brown" <markredphonesecurity.com>; <ietfietf.org>; 
>><iesgietf.org>
>>Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:35 AM
>>Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last
Call: 
>>draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
>>
>>
>>>Dean:
>>>
>>>I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a
document for which I am 
>>>an author.  You will find this to be the normal
practice for all IESG 
>>>members.
>>>
>>>I have no financial interest in PedPhone
Security or the patent filing. 
>>>I provided consulting services to RedPhone
Security; it was a simple work 
>>>for hire.
>>>
>>>I have no investors in my very small consulting
company: Vigil Security, 
>>>LLC.  I am the owner, and I am the only
full-time employee.
>>>
>>>Russ
>>>
>>>
>>>ItAt 07:47 PM 4/7/2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dean:
>>>> >
>>>> > >I'm still not clear on a few
things:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >-- When did Russ Housley learn of
the Patent Filing?
>>>> >
>>>> > I was aware that Mark Brown was
working on a patent; however, I did
>>>> > not begin working with him until after
his provisional patent
>>>> > application was filed.  I did not see
the claims until the filing
>>>> > became public.
>>>> >
>>>> > Since I knew that a patent was in the
works, but I did not know the
>>>> > details, at the time we submitted the
-00  draft to the repository
>>>> > (which was February 2006), I reminded
Mark Brown that an IPR
>>>> > statement might be necessary.
>>>>
>>>>How long did it take to produce the draft?
Presumably, you must have
>>>>started working on the project earlier than
the date of submission.
>>>>Did you know of the patent application
before submission?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I note that you recused yourself from the
decisions made on this draft.
>>>>That is commendable. It also implies that
you stand to benefit somehow
>>>>from the draft. But the patent (assuming it
is granted) gives Brown and
>>>>Wilke a monopoly on the technology.  How is
it, in general terms, that
>>>>you will benefit from this draft?  Do you
have, perhaps, a favorable
>>>>license agreement with Brown?  Perhaps stock
in Brown's company?  Did
>>>>Brown agree to invest in your company?  Is
there another patent
>>>>application? As it stands, the information
we have, indicates that only
>>>>Brown stands to benefit, and this doesn't
explain your involvement in
>>>>these drafts. Some clarity on how you stand
to benefit would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for
better service?
>>>>www.av8.net         faster, more reliable,
better service
>>>>617 344 9000
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ietf mailing list
>>>Ietfietf.org
>>>https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> 

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

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Thread: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns