Subject: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:25:10 -0400

Hi,

As co-chair it is my responsibility to make the WG aware that there
has been a disclosure that an unpublished pending patent application
might be infringed by the implementation of the specifications in
draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt.

The disclosure can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717.

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
co-chair, Syslog WG 

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: Balazs Scheidler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:21:13 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717.

This is insane. I just tried google to search for syslog-ng and stunnel,
I got 89000 result pages, the contents most probably describing how to
combine syslog-ng and TLS, e.g. transfer syslog messages on a TLS
encrypted channel

I would call that prior art, although the details of the patent is to be
seen, but I am not happy. I might even choose not to interoperate with
the protocol specified here with syslog-ng.

Puzzled.

-- 
Bazsi

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:06:38 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

RFC3979 is our guide here:
   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt

>From Section 2 of that document:
===
    RFC 2026, Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the
    IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights:

    (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.
===

As I see it (IANAL), we can decide to use the IPR, or not.  For us to 
proceed, we will need:
   1) to hear what the claim is, and
   2) to decide if the terms of use are acceptable.
The latter is in the disclosure that David sent around.

Section 6.4 of RFC 3979 give specifics about what must be disclosed. 
I'll ask Miao and Yuhzi to give us what specifics they can at this time - 
can you update the disclosure notice to include what section of 
draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt contains the claimed IPR according 
to RFC 3979 Section 6.4.1.

While we're waiting for that, I'll ask for people to look over the 
licensing terms and provide feedback to the list about its acceptability.

Thanks,
Chris

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:13:38 -0400

Hi,

Three things:

1) Whether the patent would survive a check into prior art is not
something the IETF takes a position on:

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   [email-masked].

2) The company has filed a disclosure. You should read the disclosure
before losing your cool. 
  The disclosure says (roughly) it will license the technology
royalty-free for standards use.

3) Since I work for the company filing the disclosure, I will recuse
myself from chairing this discussion. I have asked Chris to chair the
discussion.

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
co-chair, Syslog WG

---

From: Darren Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:23:05 +1000 (EST)

As someone who works fr the offending company, I might point
out that the lodged IPR statement does not accurately reference
the draft at all.  It talks about "section IV" and "section V".
The current draft has no "section IV" or "section V".
The draft does have sections labelled "section 4" and "section 5".
If you know anything of legal documents and messages then you will
understand that they need to be accurate.  Ask your lawyer for
more information on this.

Given your role as chair and that you are employed by the
company involved, I would like to ask you to resign your
role as co-chair here because I believe your commercial
interests are compromising the direction and role of this
group.

If you do not wish to voluntarily resign I will ask the
group to take a vote on this matter.  As it stands, there
are a number of people who do not like this move and I
can imagine any number of them would feel betrayed by it.

Darren

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:39:14 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Darren,

David has recused himself from this discussion because of any possible 
conflict of interest.  As you note, the claim statement does not 
accurately reflect the sections of the ID, but rather the sections of the 
claim statement itself.  I am working on getting more information about 
the claim and then we can see what the Working Group wants to do.  For 
now, I will ask for some patience from everyone while we sort this out.

Thanks,
Chris

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:40:14 -0400

Hi Darren,

The disclosure document itself contains a section IV and a section V. 

Because I work for the company with the claim, I have recused myself
from chairing the discussion, have stayed out of the discussion, and
have asked Chris to lead the discussion. 

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Reed [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:23 PM
> To: David B Harrington
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Call for David Harrington to resign from syslog as co-chair
>