Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
bcp79-13

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12   Best Current Practice
          13 rfc8179                                    IPR declarations
Network Working Group                                     Scott Bradner
Internet-Draft                                       Harvard University
Intended status: BCP
Obsoletes: 3979, 4879                                   Jorge Contreras
Updates: 2026                                        University of Utah
Expires: August 7, 2017                                   March 8, 2017


            Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
                    draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-13.txt

Abstract

   The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
   patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
   designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
   much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical
   proposal as early as possible in the development process. The
   policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the
   public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR
   holders.  This document sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR
   related to technology worked on within the IETF.  It also describes
   the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This document
   updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.
   This document also obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.

Status of this document

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions         Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html


Table of Contents
1. Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   3. Participation in the IETF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   3.1. General Policy   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   3.2. Rights and Permissions in Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . .
   3.3.  Obligations on Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   4.  Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s)
       Have Been Received  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5. IPR Disclosures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.1.1.  A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution  . . . . . . .
   5.1.2. An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others   . . . .
   5.1.3. IPR of Others  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.2.1. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.1 . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.2.2. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.2 . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.3. How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.4. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.4.2. Updating IPR Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.4.3. Blanket IPR Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.6. Level of Control over IPR requiring Disclosure . . . . . . . . .
   5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   5.8.  General Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   6. Failure to Disclose  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups . . . .
   8. Change Control for Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   9. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents .



Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   10. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   11. Application to non-IETF Stream Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . .
   12. Security Considerations   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   13. Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   14.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   14.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   15. Editor's Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   16. Changes since RFC 3979  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Definitions

   The following definitions are for terms used in the context of this
   document.  Other terms, including "IESG," "ISOC," "IAB," and "RFC
   Editor," are defined in [RFC2028].

   a. "Alternate Stream":  the IAB Document Stream, the IRTF Document
      Stream and the Independent Submission Stream, each as defined in
      Section 5.1 of [RFC4844], along with any future non-IETF streams
      that might be defined.

   b. "Blanket IPR Statement" or "Blanket Disclosure": see Section 5.4.3

   c. "Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
      RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity,
      in each case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process
      or that is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has
      adopted this policy.

      Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
      electronic communications, which are addressed to:

      o any IETF plenary session,
      o any IETF working group [see BCP 25] (WG) or portion thereof or
         any WG chair on behalf of the relevant WG,
      o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,
      o WG design teams [see BCP 25] and other design teams that intend
         to deliver an output to IETF, or portions thereof,
      o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
      o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
      o any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room or discussion board,
         operated by or under the auspices of the IETF, including the
         IETF list itself,
      o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function.

      Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
      function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF



Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      activity, group or function, are not Contributions in the context
      of this document.  And while the IETF's IPR rules apply in all
      cases, not all presentations represent a Contribution. For example
      many invited plenary, area-meeting or research group presentations
      will cover useful background material such as general discussions
      of existing Internet technology and products, and will not be a
      Contribution. (Some such presentations can represent a
      Contribution, as well, of course).  Throughout this document, the
      term "written Contribution" is used.  For purposes of this
      document, "written" means reduced to a written or visual form in
      any language and any media, permanent or temporary, including but
      not limited to traditional documents, e-mail messages, discussion
      board postings, slide presentations, text messages, instant
      messages, and transcriptions of oral statements.

   d. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution

   e. "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a
      patent application (including a provisional patent application) in
      any jurisdiction , or any other Intellectual Property Right, would
      necessarily be infringed by the exercise of a right (e.g., making,
      using, selling, importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with
      respect to an Implementing Technology.  For purposes of this
      definition, "valid claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or
      patent application which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled
      or disclaimed, nor held invalid by a court of competent
      jurisdiction in an unappealed or unappealable decision.

      ,ti -3 f. "General Disclosure": see Section 5.8.

   g. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
      individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
      lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
      initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general
      designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but
      solely to the extent of such participation.

   h. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as
      part of the IETF Standards Process.  These are also referred to as
      "IETF Stream Documents" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844.

   i. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in
      any of the settings described in the above definition of
      Contribution.  The IETF Standards Process may include
      participation in activities and publication of documents that are
      not directed toward the development of IETF standards or
      specifications, such as the development and publication of
      informational and experimental (see Section 4 of RFC 2026)



Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      documents.

   j. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means a patent, utility
      model, or similar right that may Cover an Implementing Technology,
      whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof,
      or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
      See [RFC5378] for a discussion of Trademarks.

   k. "Implementing Technology": means a technology that implements an
      IETF specification or standard.

   l. "Internet-Draft": a document used in the IETF and RFC Editor
      processes, as described in [RFC2026 Section 2.2].

   m. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means making a
      Contribution, as described above, or in any other way acting in
      order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
      IETF Standards Process.  Without limiting the generality of the
      foregoing, acting as a working group chair or Area Director
      constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
      working group(s) he or she is responsible for in an area.
      "Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual
      Participating in an IETF discussion or activity.

   m. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
      knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
      would reasonably be expected to know.  This wording is used to
      indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
      in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
      disclosure requirement.  But this requirement should not be
      interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or Participant (or
      his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
      search to find applicable IPR.

   o. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF.  RFCs are
      published by the RFC Editor.  (See [RFC2026] Section 2.1)

2. Introduction

   The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
   patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
   designed to ensure that IETF working groups and Participants have as
   much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical
   proposal as early as possible in the development process.  The
   policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the
   public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR
   holders.  This document details the IETF policies concerning IPR
   related to technology worked on within the IETF.  It also describes



Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This document
   updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.
   This document also obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.

   There are three basic principles regarding how IETF deals with claims
   of Intellectual Property Rights (originally outlined in Section 10 of
   RFC 2026):
    (a) the IETF will make no determination about the validity of any
      particular IPR claim
   (b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology
      for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such a
      use is warranted
   (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
      the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
      of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
      group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
      Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may
      ultimately Cover the technology under discussion.  This applies to
      both Contributors and other participants, and applies whether they
      contribute in person, via email or by other means.  The
      requirement applies to all IPR of the participant, the
      participant's employer, sponsor, or others represented by the
      participants, that is reasonably and personally known to the
      participant.  No patent search is required.

   Section 1 defines the terms used in this document.  Sections 3
   through 11 set forth the IETF's policies and procedures relating to
   IPR.  Section 13 lists the changes between this document and RFCs
   3979 and 4879.  A separate document [RFC5378] deals with rights (such
   as copyrights and Trademarks) in Contributions, including the right
   of IETF and IETF Participants to publish and create derivative works
   of those  Contributions.  This document is not intended to address
   those issues.  See RFC 6702 [RFC6702] for a discussion of "Promoting
   Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules".

   This document is not intended as legal advice.  Readers are advised
   to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal
   interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF in any
   Contributions they make.

3. Participation in the IETF

3.1. General Policy

   In all matters relating to Intellectual Property Rights, the intent
   is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while
   respecting the legitimate rights of others. The disclosures required
   by this policy are intended to help IETF working groups define



Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   superior technical solutions with the benefit of as much information
   as reasonably possible about potential IPR claims relating to
   technologies under consideration.

3.2. Rights and Permissions in Contributions

   By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the
   Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to agree to
   the following terms and conditions, on his or her own behalf, and on
   behalf of the organizations the Contributor represents or is
   sponsored by (if any) when submitting the Contribution.

3.3.  Obligations on Participants

   By Participating in IETF, each Participant is deemed to agree to
   comply with all requirements of this RFC that relate to Participation
   in IETF activities.  Without limiting the foregoing, each Participant
   that is a Contributor makes the following representations to IETF:

   A. Such Contributor represents that he or she has made or will
      promptly make all disclosures required by Section 5.1.1 of this
      document.

   B. Such Contributor represents that there are no limits to the
      Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and
      agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the
      Contributor.

4.  Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received

   A. The IESG, IAB, ISOC and IETF Trust disclaim any responsibility for
      identifying the existence of or for evaluating the applicability
      of any IPR, disclosed or otherwise, to any IETF technology,
      specification or standard, and will take no position on the
      validity or scope of any such IPR.

   B. When the IETF Secretariat has received a notification under
      Section 5.1.3 of the existence of non-participant IPR that
      potentially Covers a technology under discussion at IETF or which
      is the subject of an IETF Document, the IETF Secretariat shall
      promptly publish such notification and will request that the
      identified third party make an IPR disclosure in accordance with
      the provisions of Section 5.


   C. When an IPR disclosure has been made as provided in Section 5 of
      this document, the IETF Secretariat may request from the purported
      holder of such IPR a written assurance that upon approval by the



Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      IESG for publication of the relevant IETF specification(s) as one
      or more RFCs, all persons will be able to obtain the right to
      implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
      to Implementing Technology under one of the licensing options
      specified in Section 5.5.A below unless a statement identifying
      one of the licensing options described in Section 5.5.A has
      already been received by the IETF Secretariat.  The working group
      proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the
      Intellectual Property Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF
      Secretariat in this effort.

      The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
      publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF Document
      along the standards track.  A working group may take into
      consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating the
      technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
      facilitate obtaining such assurances.  The results will, however,
      be recorded by the IETF Secretariat, and be made available online.

   D.  The IESG will not make any determination that any terms for the
      use of an Implementing Technology (e.g., the assurance of
      reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) have been fulfilled in
      practice.  It will instead apply the normal requirements for the
      advancement of Internet Standards (see RFC 6410). If the two
      unrelated implementations of the specification that are required
      to advance from Proposed Standard to Standard have been produced
      by different organizations or individuals, or if the "significant
      implementation and successful operational experience" required to
      advance from Proposed Standard to Standard has been achieved, the
      IESG will presume that the terms are reasonable and to some degree
      non-discriminatory. Note that this also applies to the case where
      multiple implementers have concluded that no licensing is
      required.

      This presumption may be challenged at any time, including during
      the Last-Call period by sending email to the IESG.

5. IPR Disclosures

   This document refers to the IETF Participant making disclosures,
   consistent with the general IETF philosophy that Participants in the
   IETF act as individuals.  A Participant's obligation to make a
   disclosure is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner, which may
   be the Participant's employer or sponsor, makes an appropriate
   disclosure in place of the Participant doing so.

5.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure?




Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


5.1.1.  A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution

   Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
   the conditions of Section 5.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
   or may ultimately Cover his or her written Contribution that is
   intended to be used as an input into the IETF Standards Process, or
   which the Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her
   employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies
   based on such written Contribution, must make a disclosure in
   accordance with this Section 5.

5.1.2. An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others

   If an individual's Participation relates to a written Contribution
   made by somebody else that is intended to be used as an input into
   the IETF Standards Process, and such Participant reasonably and
   personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 5.6 which
   the Participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover that
   Contribution, or which the Participant reasonably and personally
   knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing
   Technologies based on such written Contribution, then such
   Participant must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 5.

5.1.3. Voluntary IPR Disclosures

   If any person has information about IPR that may Cover a technology
   relevant to the IETF Standards Process, but such person is not
   required to disclose such IPR under Sections 5.1.1 or 5.1.2 above,
   such person is nevertheless encouraged to file an IPR  disclosure as
   described in Section 5.3 below.  Such an IPR disclosure should be
   filed as soon as reasonably possible after the person realizes that
   such IPR may Cover a Contribution. Situations in which such voluntary
   IPR disclosures may be made include (a) when IPR does not meet the
   criteria in Section 5.6 because it is not owned or controlled by an
   IETF Participant or his or her sponsor or employer (referred to as
   third party IPR), (b) an individual is not required to disclose IPR
   meeting the requirements of Section 5.6 because that individual is
   not Participating in the relevant IETF activity or (c) the IPR Covers
   technology that does not yet meet the criteria for a Contribution
   hereunder (e.g., it is disclosed in an informal or other non-IETF
   setting).

5.2. The Timing of Disclosure

   Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to
   have as much information as they can while they are evaluating
   alternative solutions.




Bradner & Contreras                                             [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


5.2.1. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.1

   A. The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 5.1.1 must be made
      as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is submitted
      or made unless the required disclosure is already on file. See
      Section 5.4.2 for a discussion of when updates need to be made for
      an existing disclosure.

   B. If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that
      meets the conditions of Section 5.6, for example a new patent
      application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent
      portfolio, after the Contribution is published in an Internet-
      Draft, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible
      after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
      Contributor.


5.2.2. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.2

   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 5.1.2 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is made, unless
   the required disclosure is already on file.

   Participants who realize that IPR meeting the conditions of Section
   5.6 may Cover technology that will be or has been incorporated into a
   Contribution, or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are
   strongly encouraged to make a preliminary IPR disclosure.  That IPR
   disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
   reasonably possible, not waiting until the Contribution is actually
   made.

   If an IETF Participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions
   of Section 5.6 that may Cover a Contribution by another party, for
   example a new patent application or the discovery of a relevant
   patent in a patent portfolio, after the Contribution was made, an IPR
   disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the
   Contribution or IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
   Participant.

   5.2.3      Timing of Disclosure by ADs and Others

   By the nature of their office, IETF Area Directors or persons
   assisting them may become aware of Contributions late in the process
   (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG review) and, therefor
   and in such cases, cannot reasonably be expected to disclose IPR
   Covering those Contributions until they become aware of them.

5.3. How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made?



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   IPR disclosures must be made by following the instructions at
   https://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.  IPR disclosures and other
   IPR-related information, including licensing information, must not be
   included in RFCs or other IETF Contributions.  The RFC Editor will
   remove any IPR-related information from Contributions prior to
   publication as an RFC.

5.4. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure?

5.4.1. Content of IPR Disclosures

   An IPR disclosure must include the following information to the
   extent reasonably available to the discloser: (a) numbers of any
   issued patents or published patent applications (or indicate that the
   disclosure is based on unpublished patent applications)  (b) the
   name(s) of the inventor(s) (with respect to issued patents and
   published patent applications), (c) the specific IETF Document(s) or
   activity affected, and (d) if the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft,
   its specific version number.  In addition, if it is not reasonably
   apparent which part of an IETF Document is allegedly Covered by
   disclosed IPR, then it is helpful if the discloser identifies the
   sections of the IETF Document that are allegedly Covered by such
   disclosed IPR.

5.4.2. Updating IPR Disclosures

   Those who disclose IPR should be aware that as Internet-Drafts
   evolve, text may be added or removed, and it is recommended that they
   keep this in mind when composing text for disclosures.

   A. Unless sufficient information to identify the issued patent was
      disclosed when the patent application was disclosed, an IPR
      disclosure must be updated or a new disclosure made promptly after
      any of the following has occurred: (1) the publication of a
      previously unpublished patent application, (2) the abandonment of
      a patent application, (3) the issuance of a patent on a previously
      disclosed patent application), (4) a material change to the IETF
      Document covered by the Disclosure that causes the Disclosure to
      be covered by additional IPR. If the patent application was
      abandoned, then the new IPR disclosure must explicitly withdraw
      any earlier IPR disclosures based on the application.  IPR
      disclosures against a particular Contribution are assumed to be
      inherited by revisions of the Contribution and by any RFCs that
      are published from the Contribution unless the disclosure has been
      updated or withdrawn.

   B. If an IPR holder files patent applications in additional countries
      which refer to, and the claims of which are substantially



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      identical to, the claims of a patent or patent application
      previously disclosed in an IPR disclosure, the IPR holder is not
      required to make a new or updated IPR disclosure as a result of
      filing such applications or the issuance of patents on such
      applications.

   C. New or revised IPR disclosures may be made voluntarily at any
      other time, provided that licensing information may only be
      updated in accordance with Section 5.5.C.

   D.  Any person may submit an update to an existing IPR disclosure.
      If such update is submitted by a person other than the submitter
      of the original IPR disclosure (as identified by name and e-mail
      address), then the IETF Secretariat shall attempt to contact the
      original submitter to verify the update.  If the original
      submitter responds that the proposed update is valid, the
      Secretariat will update the IPR disclosure accordingly.  If the
      original submitter responds that the proposed update is not valid,
      the IETF Secretariat will not update the IPR disclosure.  If the
      original submitter fails to respond after the IETF Secretariat has
      made three separate inquiries and at least 30 days have elapsed
      since the initial inquiry was made, then the IETF Secretariat will
      inform the submitter of the proposed update that the update was
      not validated, and that the updater must produce legally
      sufficient evidence that the submitter (or his/her employer) owns
      or has the legal right to exercise control over the IPR subject to
      the IPR disclosure.  If such evidence is satisfactory to the IETF
      Secretariat, after consultation with the IETF legal counsel, then
      the IETF Secretariat will make the requested update.  If such
      evidence is not satisfactory, then the IETF Secretariat will not
      make the requested update.

5.4.3. Blanket IPR Statements

   The requirement to make an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the
   submission of a blanket statement that IPR may exist on every
   Contribution or a general category of Contributions.  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 or commitment to license all
   potential IPR Covering such technology under fair, reasonable 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 commitment to license all of its IPR meeting
   the requirements of Section 5.6 (and either Section 5.1.1 or 5.1.2)
   to implementers of an IETF specification on a royalty-free (and
   otherwise reasonable and non-discriminatory) basis as long as any



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   other terms and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure.

5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure

   A. Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
      their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful
      if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the
      IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license.
      Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by
      the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF
      specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to
      implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
      to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and
      otherwise reasonable and non-discriminatory license, or b) under a
      license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and
      conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment, or c)
      without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder (e.g., a
      covenant not to sue with or without defensive suspension, as
      described in Section 7).


   B. The inclusion of a licensing declaration is not mandatory but it
      is encouraged so that the working groups will have as much
      information as they can during their deliberations.  If the
      inclusion of a licensing declaration in an IPR disclosure would
      significantly delay its submission then the discloser may submit
      an IPR disclosure without a licensing declaration and then submit
      a new IPR disclosure when the licensing declaration becomes
      available. IPR disclosures that voluntarily provide text that
      includes licensing information, comments, notes, or URL for other
      information may also voluntarily include details regarding
      specific licensing terms that the IPR holder intends to offer to
      implementers of Implementing Technologies, including maximum
      royalties.

   C. It is likely that IETF will rely on licensing declarations and
      other information that may be contained in an IPR disclosure and
      that implementers will make technical, legal and commercial
      decisions on the basis of such commitments and information.  Thus,
      when licensing declarations and other information, comments,
      notes, or URLs for further information are contained in an IPR
      disclosure, the persons making such disclosure agree and
      acknowledge that the commitments and information contained in such
      disclosure shall be irrevocable, and will attach, to the extent
      permissible by law, to the associated IPR, and all implementers of
      Implementing Technologies will be justified and entitled to rely
      on such materials in relating to such IPR, whether or not such IPR
      is subsequently transferred to a third party by the IPR holder



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      making the commitment or providing the information.  IPR holders
      making IPR disclosures that contain licensing declarations or
      providing such information, comments, notes or URLs for further
      information must ensure that such commitments are binding on any
      transferee of the relevant IPR, and that such transferee will use
      reasonable efforts to ensure that such commitments are binding on
      a subsequent transferee of the relevant IPR, and so on.

   D. Licensing declarations must be made by people who are authorized
      to make such declarations as discussed in Section 5.6 of this
      document.

5.6. Level of Control over IPR requiring Disclosure

   IPR disclosures under Sections 5.1.1. and 5.1.2 are required with
   respect to IPR (a) that is owned, directly or indirectly, by the
   individual Contributor or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or (b)
   that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert or
   (c) from which such persons derive a direct or indirect pecuniary
   benefit, or (d) as to which an individual Contributor is listed as an
   inventor on the relevant patent or patent application.

5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions.

   If a Contribution is oral and is not followed promptly by a written
   disclosure of the same material, and if such oral Contribution would
   be subject to a requirement that an IPR Disclosure be made had such
   oral Contribution been written, then the Contributor must accompany
   such oral Contribution with an oral declaration that he/she is aware
   of relevant IPR in as much detail as reasonably possible, or file an
   IPR Declaration with respect to such oral Contribution that otherwise
   complies with the provisions of Sections 5.1 to 5.6 above.

5.8.  General Disclosures.

   As described in Section 5.3, the IETF will make available a public
   facility (e.g., a web page and associated database) for the posting
   of IPR disclosures conforming with the disclosure requirements of
   this policy.  In addition, the IETF may make available a public
   facility for the posting of other IPR-related information and
   disclosures that do not satisfy the requirements of this policy but
   which may otherwise be informative and relevant to the IETF ("General
   Disclosures"). Such General Disclosures may include, among other
   things, "blanket disclosures" that do not contain a royalty-free
   licensing commitment as described in Section 5.4.3, disclosures of
   IPR that do not identify the specific IETF Documents Covered by the
   disclosed IPR, and licensing statements or commitments that are
   applicable generally and not to specific IPR disclosures.  All of



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   this information may be helpful to the IETF community, and its
   disclosure is encouraged.  However, General Disclosures do not
   satisfy an IETF Participant's obligation to make IPR disclosures as
   required by this policy.

   In some cases, if an IPR disclosure submitted by an IETF Participant
   does not meet the requirements of this policy, the IETF may elect to
   post the non-conforming IPR disclosure as a General Disclosure, in
   order to provide the greatest amount of information to the IETF
   community.  This action does not excuse the IETF Participant from
   submitting a new IPR disclosure that conforms with the requirements
   of Sections 5.1 to 5.6.  The IETF reserves the right to decline to
   publish General Disclosures that are not relevant to IETF activities,
   that are, or are suspected of being, defamatory, false, misleading,
   in violation of privacy or other applicable laws or regulations, or
   that are in a format that is not suitable for posting on the IETF
   facility that has been designated for General Disclosures.

6. Failure to Disclose

   There may be cases in which individuals are not permitted by their
   employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance
   of patent applications or other IPR.  Since disclosure is required
   for anyone making a Contribution or participating in IETF activities,
   a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason,
   or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF
   activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and
   personally knows may be Covered by IPR which he or she will not
   disclose, unless that person knows that his or her employer or
   sponsor will make the required disclosures on his or her behalf.

   Contributing to or participating in IETF activities about a
   technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
   IETF policy.

   In addition to any remedies or defenses that may be available to
   implementers and others under the law with respect to such a
   violation (e.g., rendering the relevant IPR unenforceable), sanctions
   are available through the normal IETF processes for handling
   disruptions to IETF work. See [RFC6701] for details regarding the
   sanctions defined in various existing Best Current Practice
   documents.

7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.  However, to solve a given technical problem,



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt a technology as to
   which IPR claims have been made if they feel that this technology is
   superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free
   licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. To assist
   these working groups, it is helpful for the IPR claimants to declare,
   in their IPR Declarations, the terms, if any, on which they are
   willing to license their IPR Covering the relevant IETF Documents.

   A. When adopting new technologies, the participants in an IETF
   working group are expected to evaluate all the relevant tradeoffs
   from their perspective. Most of the time these considerations are
   based purely on technical excellence, but IPR considerations may also
   affect the evaluation and specific licensing terms may affect the
   participants' opinion on the desirability of adopting a particular
   technology.

   B. The IETF has no official preference among different licensing
   terms beyond what was stated at the beginning of this section.
   However, for information and to assist participants in understanding
   what license conditions may imply, what follows are some general
   observations about some common types of conditions. The following
   paragraphs are provided for information only:

   C. When there is no commitment to license patents covering the
   technology, this creates uncertainty that obviously is concerning.
   These concerns do not exist when there is a commitment to license,
   but the license terms can still differ greatly. Some common
   conditions include 1) terms that are fair, reasonable and non-
   discriminatory, and which may bear royalties or other financial
   obligations (FRAND or RAND); 2) royalty-free terms that are otherwise
   fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND-z); and 3) commitments
   not to assert declared IPR, possibly conditional on reciprocity. Open
   source projects, for instance, often prefer the latter two. Note that
   licenses often come with complex terms that have to be evaluated in
   detail, and this crude classification may not be sufficient to make a
   proper evaluation. For instance, licenses may also include
   reciprocity and defensive suspension requirements that require
   careful evaluation.

   D. The level of use of a technology against which IPR is disclosed is
   also an important factor in weighing IPR encumbrances and associated
   licensing conditions against technical merits.  For example, if
   technologies are being considered for a mandatory-to-implement change
   to a widely deployed protocol, the hurdle should be very high for
   encumbered technologies, whereas a similar hurdle for a new protocol
   could conceivably be lower.

   E. IETF Working groups and IETF Areas may, however, adopt stricter



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   requirements in specific cases. For instance, the IETF Security Area
   has adopted stricter requirements for some security technologies. It
   has become common to have a mandatory-to-implement security
   technology in IETF technology specifications. This is to ensure that
   there will be at least one common security technology present in all
   implementations of such a specification that can be used in all
   cases.  This does not limit the specification from including other
   security technologies, the use of which could be negotiated between
   implementations.  An IETF consensus has developed that no mandatory-
   to-implement security technology can be specified in an IETF
   specification unless it has no known IPR claims against it or a
   royalty-free license is available to implementers of the
   specification. It is possible to specify such a technology in
   violation of this principle if there is a very good reason to do so,
   and if that reason is documented and agreed to through IETF
   consensus.  This limitation does not extend to other security
   technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as
   mandatory-to-implement.

   F. It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures at any
   given time is not the same thing as the knowledge that there will be
   no IPR disclosure in the future, or that no IPR Covers the relevant
   technology.  People or organizations not currently involved in the
   IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be
   relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any
   time.

   G. It should be noted that the validity and enforceability of any IPR
   may be challenged for legitimate reasons outside the IETF. The mere
   existence of an IPR disclosure should not be taken to mean that the
   disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable or actually Covers a particular
   Contribution.  Although the IETF can make no actual determination of
   validity, enforceability or applicability of any particular IPR, it
   is reasonable that individuals in a working group or the IESG will
   take into account their own views of the validity, enforceability or
   applicability of IPR in their evaluation of alternative technologies.

8. Change Control for Technologies

   The IETF must have change control over the technology described in
   any standards track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may
   be discovered or to produce other derivative works.

   In some cases the developer of patented or otherwise controlled
   technology may decide to hand over to the IETF the right to evolve
   the technology (a.k.a., "change control").  The implementation of an
   agreement between the IETF and the developer of the technology can be
   complex.  (See [RFC1790] and [RFC2339] for examples.)



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   Note that there is no inherent prohibition against a standards track
   IETF Document making a normative reference to proprietary technology.
   For example, a number of IETF Standards support proprietary
   cryptographic transforms.

9. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents

   RFC 6410 [RFC6410] Section 2.2 states: "If the technology required to
   implement the specification requires patented or otherwise controlled
   technology, then the set of implementations must demonstrate at least
   two independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing
   process. "  A key word in this text is "requires."  The mere
   existence of disclosed IPR does not necessarily mean that licenses
   are actually required in order to implement the technology.

10. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents

   IETF Documents must not contain any mention of specific IPR.  All
   specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as described in Section 5.
   Readers should always refer to the on-line web page to get a full
   list of IPR disclosures received by the IETF concerning any
   Contribution.  (https://www.ietf.org/ipr/)

11. Application to non-IETF Stream Documents

   This document has been developed for the benefit and use of the IETF
   community.  As such, the rules set forth herein apply to all
   Contributions and IETF Documents that are in the "IETF Document
   Stream" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844 (i.e., those that are
   contributed, developed, edited and published as part of the IETF
   Standards Process).

   The rules that apply to documents in Alternate Streams are
   established by the managers of those Alternate Streams (currently the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Research Steering Group
   (IRSG) and Independent Submission Editor, as specified in RFC 4844).
   These managers may elect, through their own internal processes, to
   cause this document to be applied to documents contributed to them
   for development, editing and publication in their respective
   Alternate Streams.  If an Alternate Stream manager elects to adopt
   this document, they must do so in a manner that is public and
   notifies their respective document contributors that this document
   applies to their respective Alternate Streams.  In such case, each
   occurrence of the term "Contribution," and "IETF Document" in this
   document shall be read to mean a contribution or document in such
   Alternate Stream, as the case may be.  It would be advisable for such
   Alternate Stream manager to consider adapting the definitions of
   "Contribution," and other provisions in this document to suit their



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


   particular needs.

12. Security Considerations

   This document relates to IETF process, not any particular technology.
   There are security considerations when adopting any technology,
   whether IPR-protected or not.  A working group should take those
   security considerations into account as one part of evaluating the
   technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no known issues of
   security with IPR procedures.

13. Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879

   The material in RFC 3979 was significantly reorganized to produce
   this document. This section reviews the actual changes in content
   since RFC 3979 and does not detail the reorganization.  These changes
   are listed from the point of view of this document with reference to
   the RFC 3979 section where useful. This Section is intended only as
   an informational summary of the text contained in Sections 1-12 of
   this document. This Section does not constitute the official policy
   of IETF, and should not be referred to or quoted as such.  Any
   discrepancies or ambiguities shall be resolved in favor of the
   language contained in Sections 1-12 of this document.

   Boilerplate -- since the document boilerplate formerly in BCP79 Sec.
      5 has been moved to the Trust Legal Provisions since 2009, deleted
      the boilerplate requirements from this document.

   1 - Definitions

      1.a  "Alternate Stream" definition (new): Added to enable IRTF,
         IAB and RFC Editor streams to adopt and use BCP79 more easily.

      1.b - "Contribution": (was 1.c)

         Removed "IETF" to more easily enable other Streams to adopt
            this policy

         Added "intended to affect the IETF Standards Process" -
            Addition needed to prevent information presentations (e.g.,
            plenary guest speakers) from being considered Contributions.

         Added BOFs, design teams, web sites, chat rooms - Contributions
            can be made in any of these places

      1.d  "Covers" (was 1.n) -added provisional patent applications -
         Required to eliminate ambiguity whether provisional
         applications are included



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      1.f - "IETF documents" (was 1.h) - Limited to IETF (not Alternate
         Stream) documents

      1.g - "IETF Standards Process" (was 1.b) - Clarify that
         Contributions can be made in contexts other than traditional
         IETF standards development.

      1.h - "IPR" (was 1.o) - removed reference to copyrights, database
         rights and data rights - Copyright in IETF documents and
         contributions is addressed under RFC 5378 and is treated very
         differently than patents, which are the focus of BCP79.
         Data/database rights not relevant to IETF standards, and cannot
         be registered or disclosed in the manner of patents.

      1.j - "Internet Draft" (was 1.g) - reduced to reference RFC 2026
         without additional description for clarity

      1.k - "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity" (new) -
         Due to numerous ambiguities over the years, it was necessary to
         add a section describing what it means to "participate" in an
         IETF activity

      1.m - "RFC" (was 1.e) - Added cross-reference to RFC 2026 and
         eliminated textual description of RFC permanence

   2. - Introduction - This added text that offers an overview of why we
      have this policy, cut prior discussion of RFC 2026 Section 10 as
      no longer necessary & added references to subsequent RFCs relating
      to IPR, including RFC 5378 and 6702

   3. - Contributions to the IETF - Changed focus to participation
      rather than making of contributions and explain why we require IPR
      disclosure

   old 3.2.1.C - Deleted because all required legends in IETF documents
      are now described in RFC 5378 and Trust Legal Provisions

   3.3 - Obligations on Participants - Added to make clear that
      participation in IETF obligates the participant to comply with
      IETF rules

   old 4A - Removed because inconsistent with current and historical
      practice.  Also, all legends in IETF documents now addressed in
      Trust Legal Provisions.

   4.A - The IESG, IAB  - added IAB, ISOC and IETF Trust to disclaimer

   4.B - When the IETF Secretariat - Added description of current



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      procedure used to publish third party IPR disclosures

   4.C - When an IPR disclosure ... - updated to reflect current
      practice and roles (e.g., Secretariat rather than IETF Exec Dir).

   4.D - Determination of Provision of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
      Terms (was 4.1) - Various edits made to this paragraph to reflect
      current process for advancement of standards.

   old 5. - deleted as not needed

   5.1.1 - Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution (was 6.1.1) -
      Limits disclosure obligation to written Contributions intended to
      be used as inputs to the IETF Standards Process. - Oral
      disclosures are now covered in Sec. 5.7.

   5.1.2 - Contributions by others (was 6.1.2) - Revisions made
      consistent with 5.1.1 above

   5.1.3 - Voluntary IPR Disclosures (was 6.1.3) - Fixes procedures for
      making voluntary IPR disclosures and adds examples of when
      voluntary disclosures may be appropriate.  In addition to IPR of
      others, voluntary disclosures are encouraged when an IETF
      Participant is aware of its own IPR that covers IETF work in which
      it is not an active participant, and when the technology is
      disclosed in other than an IETF setting.

   5.2.1 - Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.1 (was 6.2.1) -
      Trigger for disclosure changed from publication of a Contribution
      in an I-D to "submitted or made", Lengthy example regarding
      updates deleted in lieu of cross-reference to Sec. 5.4.2 re.
      updates.

   5.2.2 - Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.2 (was 6.2.2)-
      Corresponding changes made per 5.2.1

   5.2.3 - Timing of Disclosure by ADs - Added to clarify AD disclosure
      obligations

   5.3 - IPR disclosures and other ... - Reflects current practice re.
      prohibition of including IPR information directly in IETF
      documents.

   5.4.1 - Content of Disclosures (was 6.4.1) - added requirement to
      disclose names of inventors - Disclosing the name(s) of inventors
      on a patent will make it more likely that IETF participants will
      recognize whether the inventor is an IETF participant, and what
      IETF activities that individual participates in.  This information



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      is easy for the discloser to provide, and less convenient for
      every reader of the IPR disclosure to look up in patent office
      records (if even available).

   5.4.2 - Updating IPR Disclosures (was 6.4.2) - Significant revisions
      and additional detail added regarding updating of IPR disclosures
      upon events such as issuance of patents, amendment of claims,
      employee changing jobs, employer acquires another company, etc.

   5.4.2.D - clarify that additional IPR disclosures are not needed for
      foreign counterparts

   5.4.3 - Blanket IPR Statements (was 6.4.3) - wording clarifications
      plus changed "willingness" to "commitment" - A blanket IPR
      disclosure which does not list specific patent numbers is not
      compliant with this policy unless the discloser commits (and is
      not just willing) to license such patents on royalty-free and
      otherwise reasonable terms.

   5.5.C - It is likely that IETF will rely ... - new paragraph - Makes
      licensing declarations irrevocable so that they may be relied upon
      in the future by implementers

   5.5.D - Licensing declarations ... - new paragraph - Requires that
      licensing declarations must be made by people authorized to make
      them.

   5.6 - Level of Control over IPR requiring disclosure (was 6.6) - in
      addition to ownership of IPR, language added to require disclosure
      when Participants derive a pecuniary benefit from the IPR, or the
      individual is a listed inventor - Clarifications to address
      situations not covered in earlier version

   5.7 - Disclosures for Oral Contributions - New section describing
      procedure for oral contributions. Previously, statements re. oral
      statements was contradictory. Some places said that disclosures
      must be made for oral statements, but others talk about
      disclosures only being required following publication as an ID.
      Under new text, oral statements don't trigger the normal IPR
      disclosure obligations, as oral statements are inherently
      imprecise and it's hard to know when they describe something
      covered by the technical terms of a patent claim. However, if an
      oral contribution is made and it is not followed by a written
      contribution, then the oral discloser must either make a
      concurrent oral IPR disclosure or file a formal written
      disclosure.

   5.8 - General Disclosures - This new section describes the IETF's



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      public disclosure feature, which allows IPR disclosures to be made
      by anyone, whether or not an IETF participant.  The feature has
      been up and running for years, and this language describes its
      current implementation.

   6 Failure to Disclose (was 7) - technical and clarity corrections, as
      well as new language describing potential remedies for failures to
      disclose IPR in accordance with IETF rules, including IESG actions
      described in RFC 6701.

   7. - Evaluating Alternative Technologies (was 8)

      Para. 1 - minor wording changes for clarity

      Para. 2-5 - new and relate to the considerations made by IETF WGs
         when evaluating patent and licensing disclosures concerning
         IETF standards

      Para 6. - security technologies - New paragraph makes clear that
         security is only one example of stricter requirements. Also
         requires that violation of requirements for royalty-free
         licensing in the security area can be made only with IETF
         consensus.

      Para 7-8 - (were paras 3-4) - Wording changes for clarity

   9. - Licensing Requirements (was 10) - Wording updated to reflect RFC
      6410

   10. - No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents (was 11) - Wording
      simplified to refer to Section 5.

11. - Application to non-IETF Stream Documents - new - Adds procedures
   to be followed by Alternate Stream (IAB, IRTF, RFC Ed) managers to
   adopt these rules and procedures. Borrowed and adapted the copyright
   language used in the Trust Legal Provisions.  Each alternate stream
   (Independent, IRTF and IAB) would need to take some action
   (preferably issuing an RFC) to adopt BCP 79 for its stream. This was
   done with copyright already, and pretty smoothly.

14. References

14.1. Normative References

   [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
      3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017


      the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.

   [RFC4844] Daigle, L. Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
      Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

   [RFC6410] Housley, R., D. Crocker, and E. Burger, "Reducing the
      Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", RFC 6401, October 2011.

14.2. Informative References

   [RFC1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and
      Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR
      Protocols", RFC 1790, April 1995.

   [RFC2339] The Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement
      Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun Microsystems, Inc.
      in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols", RFC 2339, May 1998.

   [RFC5378] Bradner, S. Ed, J. Contreras, Ed, "Rights Contributors
      Provide to the IETF Trust", RFC 5378, November 2008

   [RFC6701] Farrel, A., and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
      Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6702, August
      2012

   [RFC6702] Polk, T. and P. Saint-Andre, "Promoting Compliance with
      Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)Disclosure Rules", RFC 6702,
      August 2012

IANA Considerations

   This document requires no action by the IANA.  [this section should
   be removed for publication]

15. Editor's Addresses

   Scott Bradner
   15 High  St.
   Cambridge MA, 02138
   Phone: +1 202 558 5661
   EMail: sob@sobco.com

   Jorge Contreras
   University of Utah
   S.J. Quinney College of Law
   383 South University St.
   Salt Lake City, UT  84112
   Email:  cntreras@gmail.com



Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                RFC 3979 bis                    March 2017





















































Bradner & Contreras                                            [Page 25]