[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Powers Chuck-RXCP20 [EMAIL PROTECTED];
IETF Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
On 2008-08-16 10:48, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
Reading through
, 2008 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent statements can not
be removed. It is probably reasonable to have a section for apparently
not currently relevant disclosures. But the disclosures
Hi Simon, all,
Before some silence means approval assumption kicks in here, allow me to
voice my concerns again. I continue to believe that changing the current
practice (which allows the removal of disclosures form the IETF database) is
NOT a good thing. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe
it seems to be a real bad idea to let people actually remove
any type of IPR statement that might have been relied upon
by a WG in any way and since its hard to figure out if
thats the case, it seems like a real bad idea to let someone
remove a IPR statement at all
having a way for someone
Stephan Wenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Simon, all,
Before some silence means approval assumption kicks in here, allow me to
voice my concerns again. I continue to believe that changing the current
practice (which allows the removal of disclosures form the IETF database) is
NOT a good
I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent statements can not
be removed. It is probably reasonable to have a section for apparently
not currently relevant disclosures. But the disclosures, and the terms
therein, are still active. This is important for many reasons,
including
On Aug 19, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it seems to be a real bad idea to let people actually remove
any type of IPR statement that might have been relied upon
by a WG in any way and since its hard to figure out if
thats the case, it seems like a real bad idea to let someone
Josefsson
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent
statements can not be removed. It is probably reasonable to
have a section for apparently not currently relevant
disclosures. But the disclosures
Powers Chuck-RXCP20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't feel that strongly about being able to remove patent disclosures
which no longer have any value; if the concensus is to keep them in an
increasingly cluttered list of disclosures, so be it. The only situation
I was looking to avoid was the
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent statements can not
be removed. It is probably reasonable to have a section for apparently
not currently relevant disclosures. But the disclosures, and the terms
therein, are still active. This is important for
On 2008-08-16 10:48, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
Reading through this, I see that the recommendation that
an IPR discloser withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised
Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure made it into
the BCP. Someone else will have to decide if this is already
Understood.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Noel Chiappa
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:34 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
From: Bound, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED
Jim has a fine idea in principle, but in practice defensive patents are
necessary. Keep in mind that the patent system is changing to
first-to-file, from first-to-invent. Prior art is still not patentable,
but the patent law still gives significant advantages to patent holders
over public domain
Have read all this thus far and complex problem/discussion and good to have
here. I know this is heresy to many vendors but I believe the IETF should not
permit at some date in the future any part of a specification to have any IPR
from any vendor that is accountable to patents or royalties.
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:02 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a
removal request should be well established. I can think of
at least two reasons that are
On Aug 15, 2008, at 10:05 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:02 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a
removal request should be well
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:24 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Hi all,
Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of
withdrawal requests
From: Bound, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe the IETF should not permit at some date in the future any
part of a specification to have any IPR from any vendor that is
accountable to patents or royalties. In simpler terms anything we
develop in the IETF is public domain in
mobile: 512-576-0008
-Original Message-
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:32 AM
To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20
Cc: Stephan Wenger; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
By submitting a draft to the IETF, you
Stephan Wenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi John,
please note that the vast majority of IETF IPR disclosures promise patent
licenses only on technologies described in an I-D in the event that the I-D
becomes an IETF standard. This avoids the problems you mentioned nicely,
I think, at the
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, here's a quote from #644, which I had removed:
is ipv6 the ultimate version of the internet protocol now?
is possible send segments of 256 bytes in the ipv6 protocol?
support microsoft corporation the ipv6 protocol in the
microsofts private
I'm trying to summarize in a way that might someday be translated into IETF
process, and not Yet Another Great Discussion On Ietf@ietf.org That Doesn't
Result in Change...
I agree with John's suggestion that IPR disclosures be handled as moderated
postings, and I assume that we could actually
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:24 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Hi all,
Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of
withdrawal requests for previous disclosures. In no case
(that I'm aware
The problem is that there is no time limit on when the I-D can become an
IETF standard. Someone can pick up a 5 year old I-D and do the work
involved in getting it standardized; I believe our process allows for
that.
They pretty much have to write a new I-D though, and, unless it the
same
Spencer,
Let me offer one small variation, extracted from comments I've
made in an off-list discussion. I promised myself I wasn't
going to write this note, but circumstances change...
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:41 AM -0500 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to
It seems like there is a lot of concern about removals, and some
concern about original publication of spam, drivel, and duplicate
notices. Here is a proposal for a way forward:
1) Original submissions to the IPR repository are moderated, but only
to prevent publication of spam and drivel. If
Paul,
FWIW, this works for me.
One quibble: I would suggest that moderation for spam, drivel,
and duplicates ought to be a reasonable Secretariat (or IAD, or
IAD-assigned) task. If the IETF and IAB chair don't have
better things to do with their time than to moderate this sort
of posting,
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
It seems like there is a lot of concern about removals, and
some concern about original publication of spam, drivel, and
duplicate notices. Here is a proposal for a way forward:
1) Original submissions to the IPR repository are moderated
At 1:33 PM -0400 8/15/08, John C Klensin wrote:
FWIW, this works for me.
One quibble: I would suggest that moderation for spam, drivel, and
duplicates ought to be a reasonable Secretariat (or IAD, or
IAD-assigned) task.
Heh. I put that provision in specifically because I thought *you*
At 1:37 PM -0400 8/15/08, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
In general, not a bad approach. However, does a valid amendment include
the statement this IPR declaration is now null and void, since the
technology did not make it into the targeted standard? This would
resolve the issue of having IPR
Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 7:31 AM -0700 8/15/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
By submitting a draft to the IETF, you (normally) give the IETF rights
to build technology based on it.
While I am sure that you don't mean to confuse this issue,
to build technology based on it has two
Your process seems fine to me, however, does it have any advantage
compared to having [EMAIL PROTECTED] be a moderated mailing list, run
under the same rules as any other IETF mailing list?
We already have processes to deal with spam, moderation, DoS attacks,
and even appeal paths. You can
On 2008-08-16 06:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:37 PM -0400 8/15/08, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
In general, not a bad approach. However, does a valid amendment include
the statement this IPR declaration is now null and void, since the
technology did not make it into the targeted standard? This
Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that there is no time limit on when the I-D can become an
IETF standard. Someone can pick up a 5 year old I-D and do the work
involved in getting it standardized; I believe our process allows for
that.
They pretty much have to write a new I-D
At 12:07 AM +0200 8/16/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Your process seems fine to me, however, does it have any advantage
compared to having [EMAIL PROTECTED] be a moderated mailing list, run
under the same rules as any other IETF mailing list?
Yes, many.
- It keeps the current URLs in place.
-
For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think
it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we
know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired
WG document years later doesn't seem entirely unlikely.
AVT's chair just stepped
Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think
it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we
know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired
WG document years later doesn't seem entirely
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove' button
existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the
numbers Simon quoted, were completely bogus and nonsensical disclosures
clearly
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove' button
existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the
numbers Simon quoted, were
On Aug 14, 2008, at 3:25 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove'
button
existed. The only removals I recall, which
Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would divide this a little differently
- there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these
would be
- exact duplicates
- spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention patent rights or
IPR_
- postings with offensive
On Aug 14, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would divide this a little differently
- there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these
would be
- exact duplicates
- spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:25:42AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons
that are valid:
* Exact duplicates
* Spam
As soon as you have evaluated the claim, even for exact duplication
or it's spam, haven't you done exactly
On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
However, if people were filing disclosures that would not be useful
(slanderous statements, duplicate-by-accident filings, stuff that
turns out to be false and which the submitter wants redacted), we
thought that having the discretionary
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:04:37 -0400 Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In the US, I believe that every company must have a counsel of record.
Verifying a disclosure with that counsel
should be sufficient. I think that there are similar provisions in
other countries.
I don't
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:25:42AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons
that are valid:
* Exact duplicates
* Spam
As soon as you have evaluated the claim, even for exact
At 03:59 14-08-2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
existence of posters (do they
exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
_before_ the posting is accepted.
The submission form could send out an email to the
Hi all,
Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of withdrawal
requests for previous disclosures. In no case (that I'm aware of) our
intention has been to sneak out of a licensing commitment. Instead, we
submitted withdrawal requests with the intention to keep the IETF patent
: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:25:42AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
request should be well established. I can think of at
least two reasons
that are valid:
* Exact duplicates
] On
Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:24 AM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Hi all,
Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of
withdrawal requests for previous disclosures. In no case
(that I'm aware of) our
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:43 AM -0500 Eric Gray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another point to consider is that a very-likely-to-be-valid
reason for removing an IPR disclosure is if an organization's
legal representative(s) convince the IETF's legal beagles
that an IPR disclosure was made
Sullivan
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Importance: High
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:43 AM -0500 Eric Gray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another point to consider is that a very-likely-to-be-valid
reason for removing an IPR disclosure
On 8/14/08 11:15 AM, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 allegedly wrote:
I would be curious to hear the reasoning for keeping these on file,
apart from 'historical record', since I am not convinced the IETF IPR
database is the right place to hold onto IPR disclosures simply for
historical purposes that only
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:15 AM -0400 Powers
Chuck-RXCP20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that Stephan raised some very good points as to why
allowing some IPR disclosures to be removed actually makes
sense. Since quite often IPR disclosures are made for a
specific ID in a specific
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:30 AM -0500 Eric Gray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
What you said is all true, but obviously it has nothing
to do with what you responded to. I said (in effect) that -
if one set of lawyers contact another set of lawyers, we may
have to take some
]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:34 AM
To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20; Stephan Wenger; IETF Discussion
Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:15 AM -0400 Powers
Chuck-RXCP20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that Stephan raised some very good
Yes.
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:00 PM
To: Eric Gray; Simon Josefsson; Andrew Sullivan
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Importance
Hi John,
please note that the vast majority of IETF IPR disclosures promise patent
licenses only on technologies described in an I-D in the event that the I-D
becomes an IETF standard. This avoids the problems you mentioned nicely,
I think, at the expense of some uncertainty when people
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a removal
request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons
that are valid:
* Exact duplicates
* Spam
Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the liability
On 2008-08-15 01:48, SM wrote:
At 03:59 14-08-2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
existence of posters (do they
exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
_before_ the posting is accepted.
The submission
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be
tampering with the historical record.
The IETF appears to permit patent disclosures to be removed at the
request of submitters. Search for 'remove' on the list if disclosures.
Is this
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be
tampering with the historical record.
The IETF appears to permit patent disclosures to be removed at the
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and non-discriminatory
terms. It seems unfortunate that IETF allows organizations to file such
claims
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and non-discriminatory
terms. It seems unfortunate that
At 04:59 13-08-2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On the other hand (trying to play devil's advocate), if the promise
was made by someone in the organization that did not have authority
to commit the organization to that statement, I could see why the
responsible persons for that organization
--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF
will find itself in the position of evaluating the
_correctness_ of patent related claims. This seems like the
wrong approach.
Or the authority
On 2008-08-14 05:10, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF
will find itself in the position of evaluating the
_correctness_ of patent related claims. This
68 matches
Mail list logo
