Subject: Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:21:52 -0400 (EDT)

[CC'd to the main IETF list]

[Note:  Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad
movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent
position. I took my position pragmatically on the basis that the IETF
should consider patented technology intelligently on a case-by-case basis
in order to ensure participation by pro-patent groups and organizations
whose cooperation is necessary and beneficial to the IETF. This is a
pragmatic and reasonable view;  The IETF interests in patented technology
are different from my ideological interests in abolishing software
patents, even if those interests have broad support. Interoperable
standards are more important than ideology.  Placing interoperation ahead
of ideological interests, I saw the value in having participation and
cooperation on standards regardless of ideological differences.  However,
having persuaded people to take a pragmatic and cooperative view,
pro-patent persons shouldn't try to exploit that cooperation by attempting
to prevent or suppress consideration of IPR issues by working groups.]

The statement of the WG chair (included below) is not consistent with the
IETF rules on IPR disclosure and consideration.

For your reference: RFC 3979:

6.1.1.  A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution

   Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
   the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
   or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the
   Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or
   sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such
   Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section
   6.

   This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by
   any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter
   are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably
   be submitted.  An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous
   disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR
   disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised
   Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure.

   Contributors must disclose IPR meeting the description in this
   section; there are no exceptions to this rule.

The fact that a discussion may be legal in nature is of no relevance. We
live in a professional world bounded by legal constraints. The working
group must ensure that IETF requirements on IPR disclosure are met, and
that IPR encumbrances are properly and fully considered by the working
group participants in the selection of technology.  Patent encumbrance is
a valid basis for comparison of any proposal. And IPR encumbrance is in
fact not limited mere comparison, but even whether to adopt a given
technology at all; Rejection because of IPR encumbrance is a valid option 
to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I do not see that the WG Chair is allowed by IETF policy to exclude or
suppress information or discussion about IPR encumbrance, which seems to
be the purpose of suppressing this discussion. This is contrary to IETF
policy, which is to have each WG intelligently consider IPR issues.

Also, the WG chair makes mention of two documents. In fact, there are 3
documents noted in the minutes which seem to have IPR encumbrances:

Two are reported in the minutes under the heading of "IPR Issues update".  
These two have IPR statements, but the IPR encumbrances have not been 
discussed or considered on list.

draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-00 and
draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold-00

However, the IPR section of the minutes has an ominous quote about these
two:

  "There is a license available that is royalty free, but does have some
   terms. So implementors either don't know what to do or are ignoring 
   it."

Clearly, more discussion should be stimulated. It should also be
worthwhile for the WG to search for and consider alternatives that aren't
patent encumbered. This issue should be discussed, not ignored or
suppressed as a "rat-hole". This "rat-hole" nonsense is just a cover for a
submarine, pro-patent attempt to avoid discussion of the IPR issues in
these documents, and perhaps avoiding the possibility of a patent-free
alternative.

But I am also concerned about a third document that is also mentioned in
the minutes.

draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07

This document does not have an IPR disclosure on the IETF IPR page.

The minutes state: 

  First something about draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-07: There have been some
  questions in the past about patents, but as far as is known, these only
  cover specific implementations, not on the basic theory or scheme of it,
  perhaps on specific equations.

As the President of the League for Programming Freedom, and a leader on
the topics of Patent, Copyright, and Trademark law, I do not find this
explanation of non-infringement to be credible.  An IPR disclosure should
be made on this document. According to RFC 3979, Section 6.1.1 "there are
no exceptions to this rule".  Further, the IETF is not to take any
position on the validity of an IPR claim. The IETF can't ignore the claim
as being invalid--that would be taking a position on its validity.  The
claim has to be documented and disclosed, even if it may not be valid.

And also, the working group chairs should be directed to _encourage_
discussion and consideration of the IPR issues, not try to suppress the
discussion.

Note RFC 3979 Section 6.2:
6.2.  The Timing of Providing Disclosure

   Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to
   have as much information as they can while they are evaluating
   alternative solutions.

If the WG chairs are working to suppress IPR information and discussion,
it is not available for evaluation, in violation of the purpose of section
6.2.

Dean Anderson
President of the League for Programming Freedom.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> "Rat Hole Alert" [*]
> 
> Please stop this discussion.
> 
> For this working group the only relevance at this point is rough  
> consensus on the technical specification and running code. We have  
> neither at this point in time.
> 
> Lets get back to the technical task at hand. Compare the two proposals.
> 
> - --Olaf
> 
> 
> [*] http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/ 
> msg00381.html
> 
> > We want to issue is a "rat hole" alert:
> > Working groups tend to discuss the validity of patent claims, the
> > licensing terms and such at great lengths. In the end patent issues
> > are not technical but legal issues. It is up to the implementors of
> > technology under IPR to deal with these issues, not the working group.
> > If the IPR prohibits implementation than the WG would like to know,
> > from implementors. As rough consensus without running code does not  
> > make sense.
> >
> > Or to paraphrase the above: we all have an opinion on IPR, this
> > is not the list to rehash those.
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> Comment: This message is locally signed.
> 
> iD8DBQFDH0yntN/ca3YJIocRAsn8AKCk1l4ZqCW/OenPsgcFWGUBWC42HQCgujeK
> jWRDXuu83+1FIWVP96Mzi4g=
> =9z4g
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:47:40 -0700

> position. 

my memory is slipping worse that I thought.

i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:14:04 -0700 (PDT)

> i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.

Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF
to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented
for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese
patened technology has and if its available to everyone's use or not)
and that in case standardization of certain patented technology is
being considered IETF should look at if alternative to it that is
non-patented is available.

What Dean wrote makes lots of sense to me, so I primarily agree with
him, except for his typical dnsext chair bashing - I'm not sure there
is really a case there that chair is blocking discussion. I do agree
that some list members there don't like the discussion of patents, but
it appeared to be individual particupants (also it was hard to gauge
if those individual participants did not like discussions of mentioned
patent issues with dns extensions in general or if they did not like 
having discussions with Dean [on any topic] in particular).

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:22:35 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, "william(at)elan
>> i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.

It wasn't -- he's wrong.
>non-patented is available.

I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, 
my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative 
description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2 
of RFC 3669.

Wearing my IPR WG hat and citing a product of that WG...

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:44:38 -0400 (EDT)

Mr Crocker. I know you'd rather not give credit to anyone you disagree
with, which I suppose leaves only a preference to plagarize the work of
others and give undue credit to someone else, say, Vixie [ala the SPF/RMX
plagarism in which Vixie was improperly credited for the idea and the real
contributors and the originator of the idea were improperly removed***].  
However:

Since we [the anti-software-patent community -- and the LPF President is
an acknowledged leader of that community] mostly collectively dropped the
demand for no patents in lieu of a much more pragmatic and cooperative
view, a view that I originated and promoted, I think I can say they were
persuaded.

Of course, that must be very jarring to your world in which I represent no
one else's view, and have no valid point of view on any subject with which
you disagree.  And indeed, I would be unsurprised if your world does not
admit that I have a valid point of view even on any subject on which we
_do_ happen to agree.  I hope I don't rattle your world too much. Or
perhaps in your world, the IETF has already adopted a strict no-patent
policy. I couldn't tell. How'd that no-patent policy work out in your
world?  Did it alienate any pro-patent companies?

		--Dean

*** The SPF/RMX issue is just one example of professional dishonesty.  
Professional dishonesty is very much like academic dishonesty.  The IETF
is supposed to be a professional organization, an activity of The Internet
Society, which is a professional organization.  Improper attribution of
statements or plagarism, theft of ideas, etc in a referee'd paper would
not be acceptable in any professional or scientific journal. Plagarism,
theft of ideas, fabrication of statements, etc is unacceptable, under the
category of professional dishonesty. Particularly in official interactions
by the leadership of the IETF.  Academic dishonesty is grounds for
expulsion from higher educational institutions. Yet, professional
dishonesty at the IETF is grounds for...exactly nothing. It is hard to
consider the IETF a professional organization since it adheres to no
professional standards.  We shouldn't forget this, but it isn't my focus
at the moment. Someday, this issue should be addressed.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:55:21 -0400 (EDT)

> >> i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.

I see: I'm wrong, but you didn't see the original note.  How thorough of
you.  Sounds more like: "Crocker is right, no matter what".

> Wearing my IPR WG hat and citing a product of that WG...

Maybe if you are going to make official statements, you could do a more
thorough job of consulting both the statements being made, and your RFCs.  
I just cited RFC3979, a more recent product of your working group. But
nothing I said was in contradiction to RFC3669, either. Not that you 
bothered to read it before commenting.

[Didn't I just say something about fabrication of statements and
professional dishonesty...]

		--Dean

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:01:01 -0700

Folks,

I've lost track of the procedures for formally taking exception to ad hominem 
attacks, but I think we (the IETF) are overdue in needing to get quite strict 
about enforcing that requirement, and doing the enforcement in a timely fashion.l

We simply must purge patterns of personal abuse out of our public discussions 
and start requiring professional demeanor.

It is not reasonable to burden every participant with the effort to install 
filters.  A hostile work envrionment is not made tolerable by blinders and ear 
plugs.

d/

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:12:10 -0400 (EDT)

> non-patented is available.

The IETF position has gone from what might be described as studious
neutrality (ie you may consider things such as licensing terms) to a
definite preference for non-encumbrance. (Section 8 of RFC 3979):

8.  Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.  

I think many people at the IETF have no-IPR preferences, but it wasn't
written explicitly as a policy anywhere that I know of prior to RFC3979

Olaf Kolkman (WG co-chair) said:  

>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
[...]
> Please stop this discussion.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't get plainer.

		--Dean

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:07:49 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
 
> I've lost track of the procedures for formally taking
> exception to ad hominem attacks

You have collected the related documents on this page:
<http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html>

Maybe add 3683 (BCP 83) to the collection, just in case.

If something with the references in the SPF or SID RfCs
is wrong I'm sure that the authors would like to know it.

But whatever that might be, this can't be your fault, by
no stretch of imagination.
                            Bye, Frank

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:11:56 +0200

>> Please stop this discussion.

For those not on namedroppers (skipped from the CC), the full context  
of that quote can be found in:
   http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/ 
msg01202.html
and the reference therein.

- --Olaf

- -----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:57:59 -0400 (EDT)

> about enforcing that requirement, and doing the enforcement in a timely fashion.l

I agree entirely.

> and start requiring professional demeanor.

Yes, as the target of repeated personal abuse, I completely agree. 

However, you are one of the abusers.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:03:37 -0400 (EDT)

> is wrong I'm sure that the authors would like to know it.

The SPF/RMX credit problem was corrected, after a contentious debate, and
only after complaint to the main IETF list by Hadmut Danisch.

> no stretch of imagination.

The SPF issue was not Dave Crocker's personal fault.  I raised the SPF
issue because it reflects a pattern of trying to shift credit where it
isn't due. Crocker's most recent attack on me, refusing to credit my
contributions to pragmatic compromise and cooperation are further evidence
of a pattern of behavior by Mr. Crocker and associates.

		--Dean