Network Working Group T. Polk
Internet-Draft National Institute of Standards
Intended status: Informational and Technology
Expires: February 3, 2012 P. Saint-Andre
Cisco
August 2, 2011
Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure
Rules
draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-00
Abstract
The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in IETF
stream documents is essential to the accurate development of
community consensus. However, this process is not always followed by
participants in the IETF process. Regardless of the cause or
motivation, noncompliance with IPR disclosure rules can derail or
delay completion of standards documents. This document describes
strategies for promoting compliance with the IPR disclosure rules.
The strategies are primarily intended for area directors, working
group chairs, and working group secretaries.
Status of this Memo
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 http://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 February 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure August 2011
(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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Strategies for Working Group Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure August 2011
1. Introduction
The disclosure process for intellectual property rights (IPR) in IETF
stream documents is essential to the accurate and efficient
development of consensus by the community. Ensuring that IETF
working groups and participants have as much information as possible
regarding IPR constraints, as early as possible in the process,
enables the community to develop an informed consensus regarding
technical proposals. Statements to that effect appear in [RFC1602],
Section 5.5 Clause (B), and [RFC2026], Section 10.4 Clause (B).
However, IPR disclosures often do not occur at the earliest possible
stage in the IETF process. Individuals might delay disclosure
through an oversight, to subvert the consensus process, or introduce
delay. Regardless of the cause or motivation, noncompliance with IPR
disclosure rules can derail or delay completion of standards
documents. Disclosure of IPR after significant decisions, such as
working group last call, might lead to reconsideration of those
actions. For example, a working group (WG) might change course and
use a previously rejected technical proposal with less onerous
limitations. Such course corrections introduce unnecessary delays in
the standardization process.
This document suggests strategies for promoting compliance with the
IPR disclosure rules and thereby avoiding such delays. The
strategies are primarily intended for area directors (ADs), working
group chairs, and working group secretaries.
The strategies are focused on promoting early disclosure by authors,
since late disclosure involving authors has historically caused
significant delays in the standardization process. Many of the
strategies also promote early disclosure by other contributors.
1.1. Terminology
This document relies on the definitions provided in section 1 of
[RFC3979].
This document does not use the conformance language described in
[RFC2119].
2. Background
The responsibilities of contributors and IETF participants regarding
IPR disclosure are documented in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879]. These
documents do not assign any further responsibilities to working group
chairs and area directors, other than those imposed by their role(s)
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure August 2011
as contributor or participant. However, late disclosure of IPR has a
direct impact on the effectiveness of working groups, WG chairs, and
ADs.
According to [RFC2418], working group chairs are responsible for
"making forward progress through a fair and open process" and area
directors are responsible for "ensuring that working groups in their
area produce ... timely output." IPR disclosure at the earliest
possible time is an essential feature of a "fair and open process,"
and late disclosure impedes timely output through recycling and
appeals.
To better fulfill their responsibilities in the IETF standards
process, ADs and WG chairs might wish to adopt strategies to
encourage early disclosure consistent with the responsibilities
established in [RFC3979] and [RFC4879], such as the strategies
described in this document.
3. Strategies for Working Group Documents
Building upon the framework provided in [RFC3669], this section
identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure within the
document lifecycle for IETF working group documents. In general,
these opportunities are encountered during socialization, working
group adoption, working group last call, and IETF last call. The
strategies proposed in this section are primarily implemented by
working group chairs. (The exceptions are strategies for IETF Last
Call, which would be implemented by ADs.) In cases where the working
secretary creates meeting agendas or initiates consensus calls, the
secretary might also implement these strategies.
The working group process provides a number of opportunities to
encourage early IPR disclosure. The first opportunities may be
presented even before a technical proposal becomes a working group
document.
When IETF participants wish to socialize a personal draft, in hopes
of future adoption by a working group, one common strategy is to
request agenda time at an upcoming face-to-face meeting. Before the
community commits resources to reviewing and considering the draft,
it is very reasonable for the WG chair to confirm (often via email)
that all IPR disclosures have been submitted. The chair should
request confirmation from each of the authors, especially if authors
are from multiple organizations.
If necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chair has a
choice: insist on an informal disclosure in the presentation, or deny
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure August 2011
the agenda slot unless the IPR disclosure is submitted. One factor
in this decision could be the number of revisions that have occurred:
the chair might wish to permit presentation of a -00 draft with a
verbal disclosure, but not after a draft has gone through multiple
cycles.
In some cases, an IETF participant has not developed an Internet
Draft but might still request agenda time to discuss a proposal for
new draft, or a new feature for an existing working group document.
Again, it is very reasonable for the WG chair to confirm that all IPR
disclosures have been submitted before approving agenda time, so that
the community does not commit resources to analyzing the proposal
without knowledge of IPR limitations.
When a technical proposal is considered for adoption by the working
group, the chair might wish to explicitly ask the WG participants if
anyone is aware of IPR that is associated with this proposal. While
requiring confirmation from each working group participant is clearly
impossible, silence might be interpreted as as a weak "No".
Working Group Last Call is a particularly significant milestone for a
working group document, measuring consensus within the working group
one final time. If IPR disclosure statements have not been
submitted, the judgement of consensus by the chair would be less than
reliable. Even if the procedures such as those described above have
been implemented to promote IPR disclosure during socialization and
adoption, features might have evolved in a way that introduces new
IPR concerns. New participants with knowledge of IPR claims might
have joined the working group. Chairs might wish to re-confirm with
each of the authors, even if the authors all work for the same
organization. Chairs might also wish to include a reminder about the
importance of IPR disclosures in any Last Call message. (Note: If
IPR disclosure statements have been filed, the chair might wish to
include a link in the Last Call email message to ensure the consensus
call reflects this information.)
Working group documents are forwarded to the appropriate Area
Director after successfully completing working group Last Call. Area
directors are encouraged determine whether the chairs took explicit
action to promote disclosure of IPR. If the chair did not take any
of the actions listed above, the Area Director might choose to
contact authors and other key contributors (e.g., those listed in the
acknowledgements) to confirm that appropriate IPR disclosure
statements have been filed.
IETF Last Call is the AD's vehicle for gauging IETF-wide consensus.
It is critical that the community have easy access to all related IPR
statements when considering an Internet-Draft. The current tools
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure August 2011
automatically include the URL for each IPR statement explicitly
linked to the draft when the default Last Call message is generated.
If the AD edits this message, the links to IPR disclosure statements
should be preserved.
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions
This section identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure
within the IETF document lifecycle for documents that are not
processed in a working group. In general, these opportunities are
encountered during socialization, area director review, and IETF last
call.
When IETF participants wish to socialize a personal draft not
intended for a working group, it is still common to request agenda
time at an upcoming face-to-face meeting. These requests might be
made to related working groups, area meetings, or even plenary time.
Before the community commits resources to reviewing and considering
the draft, it is very reasonable for the chair of that meeting (WG
chair, AD, IESG chair or IAB chair) to confirm that all IPR
disclosures have been submitted.
The meeting chair should request confirmation from each of the
authors, especially if authors are from multiple organizations.
Where the presentation covers a concept that has not been documented
as an Internet-Draft, the chair should request confirmation from any
co-authors and from contributors acknowledged in the slide deck.
When considering the possibility of sponsoring an Internet-Draft, an
AD should also confirm that all IPR disclosures have been submitted.
The AD should require confirmation from each of the authors, even if
authors are from the same organization.
As with working group documents, IETF Last Call is the AD's vehicle
for gauging IETF-wide consensus. It is critical that the community
have easy access to all related IPR statements when considering an
Internet-Draft. The current tools automatically include the URL for
each IPR statement explicitly linked to the draft when the default
Last Call message is generated. If the AD edits this message, the
links to IPR disclosure statements should be preserved.
5. Conclusions
WG chairs and ADs are not expected to enforce IPR disclosure rules.
This document is not suggesting that they take on such a role.
However, compliance with IPR disclosure policies can significantly
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure August 2011
impact their effectiveness. To support the efficient development of
IETF standards and avoid unnecessary delays, chairs and ADs should
look for opportunities to promote awareness and compliance with the
IETF's IPR policies. The strategies in this document promote
compliance by raising the question of IPR disclosure at critical
junctures in the standardization process.
6. Security Considerations
This document suggests strategies for promoting compliance with IPR
disclosure rules during the IETF standards process. These procedures
do not have a direct impact on the security of the Internet.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.
[RFC4879] Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, April 2007.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC1602] Huitema, C. and P. Gross, "The Internet Standards Process
-- Revision 2", RFC 1602, March 1994.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
[RFC3669] Brim, S., "Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual
Property Issues", RFC 3669, February 2004.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure August 2011
Authors' Addresses
Tim Polk
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, MS 8930
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930
USA
Email: tim.polk@nist.gov
Peter Saint-Andre
Cisco
1899 Wyknoop Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Phone: +1-303-308-3282
Email: psaintan@cisco.com
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires February 3, 2012 [Page 8]