Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12
Yes
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(Harald Alvestrand)
(Jon Peterson)
(Ned Freed)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Randy Bush)
(Ted Hardie)
Abstain
Recuse
(Steven Bellovin)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ned Freed Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Randy Bush Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-10-28)
Unknown
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08: In section 1, the definition of "Reasonably and personally known" starts with a description, but then moves into a "requirement." Requirements should not be embedded in definitions. draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12: In section 1, the definition of "Reasonably and personally known" starts with a description, but then moves into a "requirement." Requirements should not be embedded in definitions. draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05: Section 4.3 says: "In the mid-90s, the basic principles of public key infrastructure had been patented for years." This is not quite right. All digital signature algorithms were covered by patents, and a digital signature algorithm is needed to implement PKI. In sections 4.1 and 4.2, the patented technology is named. Why not name RSA here?
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2003-10-30)
Unknown
Overall, these documents are good. But I have once concern: In technology-rights: > 6.4.3 The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the > submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every > Contribution. This is the case because the aim of the disclosure > requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against > specific technology under discussion in the IETF. The requirement is > also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness to license > all potential IPR under fair and non-discriminatory terms for the > same reason. However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is > satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness > to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of > Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an > IETF specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms > and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement. I am rather uncomfortable with the last sentence. It says that one does not need to disclose specific IPR if one has indicated intent to license royalty-free. But the royalty-free intent can have caveats attached to it. If the community were to disagree with those terms (e.g, they weren't considered RAND), there is no mechanism for resolving the dispute. I.e., an IPR owner can say they are licensing royalty free, and not disclose the IPR, but the impacted WGs may feel that the terms are not acceptable and thus would want to have the specific IPR disclosed. But by the above wording, such disclosures wouldn't be required. Note: I did bring this up with the WG but do not feel like the issue was addressed sufficiently. Hence, I'm abstaining on the document set.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown