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.

P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF ipr
wg charter; 
perhaps the above is totally off-topic.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com

e-mail: thierry.moreauconnotech.com



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

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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF
ipr wg charter;
> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
> 
> Regards,
> 

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

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 IETFIETF.ORG
WG since they are 
pertinent to IPR issues directly.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <sbrimcisco.com>
To: "Thierry Moreau" <thierry.moreauconnotech.com>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the
IETF ipr wg charter;
>> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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 <llynchcivil-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
>>> 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/cur
rent/msg05465.html
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_d
etail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
>   http://
www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/cur
rent/msg05527.html
>
>>      Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> Ipr-wgietf.org
>> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>





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

Harald... (and Lucy and Brian... )
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>
To: "Lucy Lynch" <llynchcivil-tongue.net>;
"Brian E Carpenter" 
<brian.e.carpentergmail.com>
Cc: "Thierry Moreau" <thierry.moreauconnotech.com>; <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent
encumbrance in IETF wg 
and IESG


>I must admit I'm lost here.

Yeah - I am betting on that one too! Have you actually EVER
read the US 
Patent filing guidelines or timeframe requirements?

>
> 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.

Simple - the filing date of the IETF Draft doesnt mean
anything to a tree 
unless its more than one year prior to the Patent App
filing. And then there 
may be issues if there was a revival effort on that
time-expired IP's... So 
the filing date of the patent app can be as much as 1 (one)
calendar year 
from the date of the first public disclosure...  so its
neither impossible 
of out of the question.

>
> What have I failed to understand?

Err... how about basic IP Law?

>
>                 Harald
>
> --On 8. juni 2007 14:52 -0700 Lucy Lynch <llynchcivil-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
>>>> 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/cur
rent/msg05465.html
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_d
etail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
>>   http://
www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf
>> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/cur
rent/msg05527.html
>>
>>>      Brian
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>>> Ipr-wgietf.org
>>> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> Ipr-wgietf.org
>> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


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

T - the filing deadlines for US Filings are 1 year post
disclosure - so 
anyone filing a draft up to 365 days prior to a patent
filing could be 
constrained by that filing. Plus there is the liability
issue to deal with 
too. That being that if any of the parties involved in the
IETF filing are 
inside or are informed as to the original IP their filing
could be a 
violation of that IP Filing's rights and they also may be
liable (as would 
their sponsor's for any damages they do inside the IETF).

TGlassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thierry Moreau" <thierry.moreauconnotech.com>
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:24 AM
Subject: 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.
>
> P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF
ipr wg charter; 
> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- 
>
> - Thierry Moreau
>
> CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
> 9130 Place de Montgolfier
> Montreal, Qc
> Canada   H2M 2A1
>
> Tel.: (514)385-5691
> Fax:  (514)385-5900
>
> web site: http://www.connotech.com

> e-mail: thierry.moreauconnotech.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


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

Dear all:

If it may assist ipr wg participants in focusing on the wg
issues, if 
any in the present discussion thread, here is a
clarification:

The observations I made about
draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements 
*are completely independent from*
draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming, or 
the IPR disclosure for the latter.

Like Harald, I'm lost when reading comments suggesting
otherwise.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com

e-mail: thierry.moreauconnotech.com


Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 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?
> 


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