Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat - IPR discussion summary.

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:14:31 -0800

So,

previously on v6ops

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1730/

Was asserted prior to WGLC on

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat/

Commentary prior to the WGLC was largely limited to not being able to 
reasonably evaluate the assertions made in the disclosure.

In the IESG evaluation the question of whether that is sufficent came up.

Reexamining this issue reveals a greater diversity of opinions my own 
included than are represented prior to or during the WGLC or the 
document shepherds reports.

To paraphrase the opinions I heard, our options look like:

1. The assertion is problematic, particulary with the terms applied and 
the draft should therefore be abandoned unless something changes.

2. We belive that the ipr assertion is invalid, either on the basis of 
the claims, or the existance of prior art,  and it's existance is not 
therefore problematic.

There are probably variations of number 2 (the question of is there new 
IPR at all in 464xlat for example) but making it binary I think is 
important given that the decision is whether to publish or not.

We had a strong concensus to send this to the IESG, I would appreciate 
more input for or against this proposition.

Thanks
joel

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:23:23 +0000

On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:14 PM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 2. We belive that the ipr assertion is invalid, either on the basis of the claims, or the existance of prior art,  and it's existance is not therefore problematic.

This is just bad reasoning.   If someone has asserted IPR under unacceptable terms (which I am not claiming to judge), then it doesn't matter whether the IPR in question is potentially invalidatable until someone spends the money to invalidate it.   Until then, bogus though it may be, we (the IETF) have to treat it as if it were enforceable, because history has shown us that it probably is.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:42:28 -0800

On 1/16/13 3:23 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> This is just bad reasoning.   If someone has asserted IPR under unacceptable terms (which I am not claiming to judge), then it doesn't matter whether the IPR in question is potentially invalidatable until someone spends the money to invalidate it.
The opinion of potential implementers  or consumers is  certainly 
Germain. I am not in a position to usefully evaluate the merit of the claim.
>    Until then, bogus though it may be, we (the IETF) have to treat it as if it were enforceable, because history has shown us that it probably is.
In fact the question of whether or not it is enforceable is something 
that implementers or consumers of the technology have to consider.   If 
it is then it certainly has implications for other ietf documents for 
which IPR disclusures have not be asserted, RFC 6145/6/7 which are the 
source material for draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat for example.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:55:07 +0000

> This is just bad reasoning.   If someone has asserted IPR under unacceptable terms (which I am not claiming to judge), then it doesn't matter whether the IPR in question is potentially invalidatabl…

That's correct. The question is more whether the WG is OK with the RAND conditions
attached to the claimed IPR. Personally I think that there is no particular
reason to block the document, because (a) the IETF often accepts RAND conditions
and (b) this technology is one among many IPv4/IPv6 coexistence solutions,
so this is not a blocking problem anyway.

The fact that the IPR looks flaky to some of us is an added argument, but
not the main one.

    Brian

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:20:49 +0000

> The fact that the IPR looks flaky to some of us is an added argument, but

This is also a BCP, rather than a protocol. It's a 'common practice' that I believe a number of ISPs are already using, and have done so for a while. Thus this is perhaps a little different in that it's documenting what ISPs are already doing.

Tim

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:38:01 +0000

> so this is not a blocking problem anyway.

I certainly don't see any reason to oppose this in the case of a BCP.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:09:28 -0800

> This is also a BCP, rather than a protocol. It's a 'common practice' that I believe a number of ISPs are already using, and have done so for a while. Thus this is perhaps a little different in that…
the protocol work was already done. effectively that was one the tests 
applied to the question of is this appropriate for v6ops or not.
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:16:11 -1000

> 2. We belive that the ipr assertion is invalid

we are not lawyers.  our opinions are not valid.

randy

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:43:12 -0800

> we are not lawyers.  our opinions are not valid.
as an individual you make decisions on your own behalf without legal 
consultation all the time.

I believe that your previously expressed position is adequately captured 
by the first bullet is it not?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:54:05 -1000

> consultation all the time.

as an individual, i drink coffee.  when participating in a group which
is concerned about intake, i do not foist my preference on the group.
observe the discussion about frelling cookies.

if an individual chooses to use/implement encumbered technology, that is
indeed their prerogative.  whether the _ietf_ says doing so is a *best*
practice should be done a bit more cautiously.

> I believe that your previously expressed position is adequately
> captured by the first bullet is it not?

yes.  so?  i am questioning the advisability of the second position.

randy

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:24:22 -0800

> observe the discussion about frelling cookies.
The decision to publish or not as a working group document requires the 
accumulation of individual preferences, without them it isn't consensus. 
I believed the issue had not been adequately aired out, so here we are.
> practice should be done a bit more cautiously.
Indeed, one can perhaps enumerate multiple rationals for why it should 
be published the decision-point however is binary.
> yes.  so?  i am questioning the advisability of the second position.

if they are:

1. don't publish
2. publish

That doesn't change the nature of the second position imho.

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:03:46 -0800

On Jan 16, 2013, at 15:14 , joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 1. The assertion is problematic, particulary with the terms applied and the draft should therefore be abandoned unless something changes.

p1. As a rule, I don't read patents or patent applications unless my lawyer instructs me to do so. Therefore, I have not, and I will not, evaluate the IPR claim in this case.

p2. For a variety of reasons I will decline to state, I think publishing this draft is a reasonable thing to do, but I'm not sure that I agree with the position that IETF should bless it as Best Current Practice when it might require paying a royalty to license the IPR involved.

Perhaps another option that could be on the table is a variant of option one above: "...the draft should therefore be categorized as Informational prior to its publication..."

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
core os networking

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:51:15 +0000

Restating, I think you just said that a "Best Current Practice" is by definition unencumbered. Is that a correct restatement?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:18:19 -1000

> Perhaps another option that could be on the table is a variant of
> option one above: "...the draft should therefore be categorized as
> Informational prior to its publication..."

we often publish "The Foo Company Way to Do X"

randy

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:27:54 -0800

>> Informational prior to its publication..."
In the the story arc of publish or not publish that falls on the side of 
publish it.
> we often publish "The Foo Company Way to Do X"
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3954.txt is something I use daily from at 
least three vendors that aren't cisco.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:26:23 +0000

> we often publish "The Foo Company Way to Do X"

We do, but generally these days they are Independent Submissions
rather than IETF Stream.

But there is nothing that says we can't publish a BCP with IPR,
if we choose to.

   Brian