Subject: [v6ops] IPR Disclosure Apple Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 07:20:12 -0700

Dear David Schinazi, Tommy Pauly:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Happy
Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency"
(draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on  and
has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights
Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3077/). The title of the IPR
disclosure is "Apple Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis"

Thank you

IETF Secretariat

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:21:22 +0900

I see this was submitted on "October 5, 2017".  I suppose now is the
chance for the working group to evaluate what this means and perhaps
reconsider this document's status?

On 6 October 2017 at 23:20, IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:36:09 +0900

+warren and the chairs, since draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis is currently in
writeup needed and on the IESG agenda.

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:41:29 +0100

> reconsider this document's status?

does the ietf have a position on ipr licensing terms with retaliatory
clauses?  If so, this is less of a wg issue and more of an ietf issue.

Nick

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:39:06 +1100

I look at them occasionally out of interest via the IETF Daily Dose page.
I've seen similar if not the same terms from other people like Cisco and
Juniper.

It seems many are building up defensive patent banks. Free to use by
anybody, but if you sue us for patent violation, then we reserve the right
to sue you back using our patents. If you want to avoid that, you can
license the patent from us.

That's my interpretation; I am of course not a lawyer.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:24:28 +1300

> clauses?  If so, this is less of a wg issue and more of an ietf issue.

IANAL, but this disclosure seems to be a pretty standard one with both
RAND and reciprocity clauses. In other words it doesn't stop anybody
from implementing the RFC unless the implementer goes after the patent
holder over something else. In the world we live in, that's as good
as we can hope for.

And no, it isn't an IETF issue. It's the WG's job to decide whether
an IPR disclosure is a problem: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-7

    Brian

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:17:04 -0700

> holder over something else. In the world we live in, that's as good

IANALNDISIAHELN (I Am Not A Lawyer, Nor Did I Stay In A Holiday
Express Last Night)

Yup, this seems to be a fairly common licensing method, and seems to
be (see above disclaimer) much less restrictive than many.

> an IPR disclosure is a problem: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-7

And, just so the WG has some history / background (as far as I can remember it):

Around WGLC the authors stated that they did not know of any IPR which
needed to be disclosed, but then (during IETF LC) became aware of the
fact that there *might* be. They needed some time to investigate /
talk to their legal people, and let the chairs know, who let me know.

I replied to the IETF LC announcement to let the IETF and WG know that
there might be an IPR disclosure forthcoming:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dmfCf7eLvtxSF30osuvmjNzGW38
(IETF list), https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bEF7VI-COO7FfYtxBjTALuDtgu0
(v6ops list).
(we also updated the shepherd writeup)

Over the next ~19 days the authors worked with their legal folk, and
the IPR disclosure was posted on Oct 5th.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:51:01 -0700

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 1:39 AM, Mark Smith <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It seems many are building up defensive patent banks. Free to use by anybody, but if you sue us for patent violation, then we reserve the right to sue you back using our patents. If you want to avoid that, you can license the patent from us.

You might take a look at RFC 1988 and RFC 8179.

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:42:01 +0900

> the IPR disclosure was posted on Oct 5th.

Thanks for the clarification Warren.

I wasn't looking for the IETF to make some determination regarding
IPR, only that the WG be informed with enough time in mind to take it
into consideration.  This had already gone to LC, but I missed your
post to v6ops.

The IPR disclosure states that it refers to section 7, which is about
NAT64 things.  One alternative /might/ be to simply remove that
section from this document.  Another alternative is to do nothing and
just let things proceed.

-Erik

(I personally don't intend to implement afresh anything from section
7, just as I don't intend to implement Extended Ping, what with
Juniper's IPR disclosure on it.  But that's just me.)