Network Working Group T. Polk
Internet-Draft National Institute of Standards
Intended status: Informational and Technology
Expires: October 7, 2012 P. Saint-Andre
Cisco Systems, Inc.
April 5, 2012
Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure
Rules
draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-02
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 during IETF standardization. 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 October 7, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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 October 7, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Strategies for Working Group Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 5
3.2. Requesting WG Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Requesting WG Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting . . . . . 7
4.2. AD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Sample Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1. General WG Reminder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.2. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual
Internet-Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.3. Reminder before Working Group Last Call . . . . . . . . . 11
A.4. Reminder to Meeting Presenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.5. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before
IETF Last Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
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 to
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 (WGLC), 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" produce 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), WG
chairs, and WG secretaries.
The strategies are focused on promoting early disclosure by document
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.
Naturally, even if ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries do not apply
the strategies described in this document, IETF contributors are
still bound by the rules defined in BCP 79 (see [RFC3979] and
[RFC4879]). This document does not modify those rules, nor does it
normatively extend those rules; it merely provides suggestions
intended to aid ADs, WG chairs, and WG secretaries.
In addition, this document does not consider the parallel, but
important, issue of potential actions that can be taken by the IETF
itself for lack of conformance with the IETF's IPR policy. That
topic is discussed in [Sanctions].
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
1.1. Terminology
This document relies on the definitions provided in section 1 of
[RFC3979].
By intent, 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 ADs, WG
chairs, and WG secretatires, other than those imposed by their roles
as contributors or participants. However, late disclosure of IPR has
a direct impact on the effectiveness of working groups, WG chairs,
and ADs.
According to [RFC2418], WG 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"; in addition, because WG chairs can appoint one or
more WG secretaries to help them with the day-to-day business of
running the WG (see [RFC2418]), some of the actions suggested in this
document might fall to WG secretaries.
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, WG chairs, and
WG secretaries 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 (WGLC), and IETF Last Call.
The strategies described in this section are primarily implemented by
WG chairs. (The exceptions are strategies for IETF Last Call, which
would be implemented by ADs.) In cases where the WG secretary
creates meeting agendas or initiates consensus calls, the secretary
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
might also implement these strategies.
3.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting
The first opportunity to encourage early IPR disclosure might occur
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 a slot on the agenda 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 chairs to confirm (often
via email) that all IPR disclosures have been submitted. The chairs
ought to request confirmation from each of the authors, especially if
authors are from multiple organizations.
If necessary disclosures have not been submitted, the chairs have a
choice: insist on an informal disclosure in the presentation, or deny
the agenda slot unless the IPR disclosure is submitted. One factor
in this decision could be the number of revisions that have occurred:
the chairs 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 a slot on the agenda to discuss a
proposal for a new draft, or a new feature for an existing working
group document. Again, it is very reasonable for the WG chairs to
confirm that all IPR disclosures have been submitted before approving
the agenda slot, so that the community does not commit resources to
analyzing the proposal without knowledge of IPR limitations.
3.2. Requesting WG Adoption
When a technical proposal is considered for adoption by a working
group, the chairs have an opportunity to confirm (or reconfirm) IPR
compliance with authors and listed contributors. In addition, the
chairs 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 a weak "No".
3.3. Requesting WG Last Call
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 chairs would be less
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
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. In addition, new participants with knowledge of
IPR claims might have joined the working group. Therefore chairs
might wish to reconfirm with each of the authors that appropriate IPR
disclosure statements have been filed, 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 WGLC message
to the working group. (Note: If IPR disclosure statements have been
filed, the chairs might wish to include a link in the WGLC message to
ensure that the consensus call reflects this information.)
3.4. AD Review
After successfully completing WGLC, a working group document is
forwarded to the appropriate Area Director for AD review, with a
request that the AD process the document for publication as an RFC.
Such a publication request is accompanied by a Document Shepherd
Write-up as required by [RFC4858] using the template found at
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html>. The current
version of the template asks the document shepherd to answer the
following question:
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Additionally, the AD can ask the chairs whether they took explicit
action to promote disclosure of IPR. If the answer to the write-up
question is not favorable, or if the chairs did not take any of the
actions listed above, the AD might choose to contact the authors and
other key contributors (e.g., those listed in the acknowledgements)
to confirm that the appropriate IPR disclosure statements have been
filed before advancing the document through the publication process.
3.5. IETF Last Call
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
ought to be preserved.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
4. Strategies for Individual Submissions
This section identifies opportunities to promote IPR disclosure
within the IETF document lifecycle for documents that are processed
outside the context of a working group (so-called "individual
submissions"). In general, these opportunities are encountered
during socialization, area director review, and IETF Last Call.
4.1. Presenting an Internet-Draft at an IETF Meeting
When IETF participants wish to socialize a personal draft not
intended for a working group, it is still common to request a slot on
the agenda at an upcoming face-to-face meeting. These requests might
be made to related working groups or area meetings, or even during
plenary time. Before the community commits resources to reviewing
and considering the draft, it is very reasonable for the chairs of
that meeting (WG chair, AD, IESG chair, or IAB chair) to confirm that
all IPR disclosures have been submitted.
The meeting chairs ought to 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 chairs ought to request confirmation from
any co-authors and from contributors acknowledged in the presentation
materials.
4.2. AD Review
When considering the possibility of sponsoring an individual
submission, an AD ought to also confirm that all IPR disclosures have
been submitted. The AD ought to require confirmation from each of
the authors, even if authors are from the same organization. As with
WG documents, a Document Shepherd Write-up is also required for AD
sponsored documents, and this must follow the template at
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/individual-doc-writeup.html>. The
current version of the template asks the document shepherd to answer
the following question:
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
4.3. IETF Last Call
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
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
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 ought to be preserved.
5. Conclusions
WG chairs and ADs are not expected to enforce IPR disclosure rules,
and this document does suggest that they take on such a role.
However, lack of compliance with IPR disclosure policies can have a
significant impact on the standardization process. To support the
efficient development of IETF standards and avoid unnecessary delays,
WG chairs and ADs are encouraged to 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.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
[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.
[RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin,
"Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to
Publication", RFC 4858, May 2007.
[Sanctions]
Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy",
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-04 (work in progress),
March 2012.
Appendix A. Sample Messages
This section provides sample messages of the kind that ADs, WG
chairs, and WG secretaries can send to meeting presenters, document
authors, document editors, and contributors during various stages of
the Internet Standards Process. The messages use a hypothetical
working group called the "FOO WG", hypothetical WG chairs named
"Alice" and "Bob", a hypothetical author named "Nigel Throckmorton",
a hypothetical AD named "Christopher", and hypothetical documents
about a hypothetical technology called "wiffle"; any resemblance to
actual working groups, WG chairs, ADs, or documents is strictly
coincidental. The last two messages might be appropriate for sending
to individuals who have requested a slot on the agenda during an IETF
meeting or who have requested AD sponsorship of an individual
submission.
A.1. General WG Reminder
Subject: Reminder about IETF IPR Policy
Dear FOO WG:
Everyone who participates in the Internet Standards Process (whether
by posting to IETF mailing lists, authoring documents, attending IETF
meetings, or in other ways) needs to be aware of the IETF rules with
regard to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). These rules are
described in BCP79 and can be referenced through
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html>.
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
Please note that these are personal requirements applying to all IETF
participants as individuals, and that these requirements also apply
to all participants in the FOO WG.
As FOO WG chairs, we would like to minimize or hopefully even
eliminate late disclosures relating to documents under consideration
within the FOO WG. Therefore you might see us send "reminder"
messages in the future to authors or to the FOO WG email list as a
whole, asking people whether they know of IPR relating to specific
documents. In order to comply with IETF processes while avoiding
unnecessary delays, document authors and contributors to our
discussions in the FOO WG are asked to take these messages seriously,
and to reply in a timely fashion. However, these messages are only
reminders of existing IETF policy, and we are all bound by that
policy even in the absence of such reminder messages.
Thanks,
Alice and Bob
(as FOO WG co-chairs)
A.2. Reminder before WG Adoption of an Individual Internet-Draft
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-wiffle-foo
Dear FOO WG:
As you can see from the consensus call the WG chairs have sent out,
the authors have asked for draft-throckmorton-wiffle-foo to be
considered for adoption as a WG document. We would like to check
whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the
document that need to be disclosed. We will weigh this information
when we judge the consensus on the call for adoption.
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-foo? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
please reply to this email message regardless of whether or not you
are personally aware of any relevant IPR. We will not be able to
advance this document to the next stage until we have received a
reply from each author and listed contributor.
If you are on the FOO WG email list but are not an author or listed
contributor to this document, then please reply only if you are
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
personally aware of IPR that has not yet been disclosed in
conformance with IETF rules.
Alice
(as FOO WG co-chair)
A.3. Reminder before Working Group Last Call
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-foo-wiffle
Dear FOO WG:
The authors of draft-ietf-foo-wiffle have asked for a Working Group
Last Call. Before issuing the Last Call, we would like to check
whether any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the
document have not yet been disclosed.
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-foo-wiffle? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. We will not be able to advance
this document to the next stage until we have received a reply from
each author and listed contributor.
If you are on the FOO WG email list but are not an author or listed
contributor, then please reply only if you are personally aware of
any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.
Thanks,
Bob
(as FOO WG co-chair)
A.4. Reminder to Meeting Presenter
Subject: IPR about draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar
Dear Nigel,
I have received your request to give a talk about
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar at the next IETF meeting. Before
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
approving this request, I would like to check whether there are any
claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on this document.
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. I will not be able to approve
your request for a slot on the agenda until I have received a reply
from you and any listed contributor.
Thanks,
Christopher
(as AD)
A.5. Reminder to Author of an Individual Submission before IETF Last
Call
Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar
Dear Nigel,
Before proceeding with your request for AD sponsoring of
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar, I would like to check whether there
are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document.
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-throckmorton-wiffle-bar? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378
for more details.)
Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR. I will not be able to advance
this document to the next stage until I have received a reply from
you and any listed contributor.
Thanks,
Christopher
(as AD)
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPR Disclosure April 2012
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his detailed comments and suggestions; to
Stephen Farrell and Pete Resnick for their feedback; and to Loa
Andersson, Ross Callon, and George Swallow for drafts of some of the
sample email messages.
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 Systems, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Phone: +1-303-308-3282
Email: psaintan@cisco.com
Polk & Saint-Andre Expires October 7, 2012 [Page 13]