Subject: [sfc] IPR Disclosure on SFC work

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:59:01 -0400

WG:

As has been noted before, an IPR disclosure has been made on the SFC
problem statement document
(draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-06.txt). Per
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2315/ The IPR holder (Ericsson)
indicates that their licensing terms would be:

    Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with
    Possible Royalty/Fee.

As has been noted, it is unusual to see an IPR declaration on a
problem statement. One doesn't implement a problem statement, raising
the question of what it means to make an IPR disclosure on a problem
statement. While there are several interpretations that could be made,
it was suggested in an earlier thread that the IPR may have broad
applicability, and that it might be difficult for the SFC WG to
develop solutions that are not potentially encumbered.

When IPR disclosures have been made, WGs have the option of taking the
potential IPR into consideration as they do their work. For example,
when selecting between competing approaches to solving a problem, IPR
considerations can be one of the factors used in weighing the pros and
cons of an approach. Some may decide that IPR is a significant issue,
others may consider disclosed IPR to be a minor factor.

The IETF handling of IPR is covered in detail in RFCs 3979 and
2026. There are aspects of IPR that are not appropriate or productive
to discuss within the WG, because at the end of the day, the IETF
cannot and does not make determinations as to whether IPR is valid,
whether it applies to a given technology, whether there is prior art,
etc. Those sorts of issues are resolved outside of the IETF.

In discussing IPR within the IETF, individual IETF participants can
indicate that they have concerns about IPR, and that those concerns
lead them to take certain positions on specific issues. For example,
IPR concerns could lead to a preference for one technical approach
over another, or in extreme cases, that work in a particular area
should not be pursued at all.

As always, WGs act on consensus, and IPR concerns are no different.
While there have been some postings indiciating unhappiness with the
disclosure, the chairs do not see consensus for any action other than
to continue on, keeping in mind that a disclosure has been made.

In summary, SFC participants should be aware of and examine the
disclosure to determine if they have any special concerns. Given the
disclosure was made on the problem statement, we should not be
surprised if a similar disclosure is made on future SFC documents.  If
folk have concerns with the disclosure and its potential impact on the
work SFC has been chartered to do, now (i.e, in next 2 weeks) would be
a good time to raise the issue.

Thomas (chair hat on)

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:57:39 +0100

I support the continuation of the publication process
of this draft as it stands.

Stewart

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:44 +0200

Thomas,

In the previous discussion, there were several requests for the IPR holder
to give a summary of the scope of the IPR and how it applies to the problem
statement. I would personally feel more comfortable about supporting the
document as it stands if this question was answered. But as it is, we're in
the dark regarding how to proceed.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Narten <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>

---

From: "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:22:59 +0000

I would second Andy's position. Considering how licensing terms are worded I think we need more details on IPR.

Andrew

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 20, 2014, at 3:22 PM, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Thomas,

In the previous discussion, there were several requests for the IPR holder to give a summary of the scope of the IPR and how it applies to the problem statement. I would personally feel more comfortable about supporting the document as it stands if this question was answered. But as it is, we're in the dark regarding how to proceed.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Thomas Narten <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
WG:

Thomas (chair hat on)

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

---

From: "Ken Gray (kegray)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:28:42 +0000

IMO, I don't think it's incumbent on the WG to stop until Ericsson explains their intent … or try their claim even if they did … because those actions are leverage-able reactions that will prompt more of the same sorts of filings in the future.

Maybe the idea IS to stop all progress … but, I think I'd leave it up to my company's lawyers to decide whether such a broad claim is enforceable before I bow to it OR allow the claimant to dictate the structure of the standard by making vague/untried claims.

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:20 PM
To: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR Disclosure on SFC work

Thomas,

Cheers,
Andy

Thomas (chair hat on)

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:37:48 -0400

Please recall

"The IETF handling of IPR is covered in detail in RFCs 3979 and
2026. There are aspects of IPR that are not appropriate or productive
to discuss within the WG, because at the end of the day, the IETF
cannot and does not make determinations as to whether IPR is valid,
whether it applies to a given technology, whether there is prior art,
etc. Those sorts of issues are resolved outside of the IETF."

This is up to individual participants...

Alia

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>  I would second Andy's position. Considering how licensing terms are
> worded I think we need more details on IPR.
>
> Andrew
>
>  Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 3:22 PM, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>   Thomas,
>
>  In the previous discussion, there were several requests for the IPR
> holder to give a summary of the scope of the IPR and how it applies to the
> problem statement. I would personally feel more comfortable about
> supporting the document as it stands if this question was answered. But as
> it is, we're in the dark regarding how to proceed.
>
>  Cheers,
> Andy
>
>

---

From: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:00:32 +0000

Andy

That is surely a hopeless wish. The engineers are unqualified to comment, even if they were permitted to do so, and I cannot imagine any patent lawyer making any statement on this other than in private to their client, or in public in court, since there is surely no advantage to their client to do so.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

On 20 Jun 2014, at 20:21, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Thomas,

Cheers,
Andy

Thomas (chair hat on)

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:12:08 -0400

I agree with Ken and others who have commented on this thread. Lets move forward. 

	--Tom

On Jun 20, 2014:4:28 PM, at 4:28 PM, Ken Gray (kegray) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
> To: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:17:54 +0000

Hi Andy,

I think it is appropriate to point out that an IPR holder has no obligation whatsoever to provide a summary of the scope of their IPR and further it is up to any interested party to go read the patent disclosure and make their own assessment. As Thomas quite rightly pointed out in his email "the IETF cannot and does not make determinations as to whether IPR is valid .. Those sorts of issues are resolved outside of the IETF”.

Date: Friday, June 20, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Thomas,

Cheers,
Andy

Thomas (chair hat on)

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:25:59 -0400

I agree with the chairs' conclusion that the WG should "continue on,
keeping in mind that a disclosure has been made".

I also advise participants to read the patent for themselves (
http://www.google.com/patents/US7200679) and consult with their own
counsel. However amusing the discussion may be, legal questions about the
intellectual property cannot be resolved here on an IETF WG mailing list.

Cheers,
-Benson

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:06:22 -0400

Andy,

> In the previous discussion, there were several requests for the IPR holder to
> give a summary of the scope of the IPR and how it applies to the problem

You and I have both been IETF participants for a long time. We both
have a lot of experience with IPR disclosures made in other WGs and on
other documents. In how many of those cases has an IPR holder given "a
summary of the scope of the IPR and how it applies"? And in how many
of those cases has such a summary actually made a difference in how a
WG proceeds?

While you (or I) might feel more comfortable with additional
clarification, how would that actually change what the WG can or
should do? 

Are you suggesting we halt or delay work while we attempt to get more
information? If so, for how long? And what if we don't get more
information? RFC 3979 makes it clear that there is no certainty we
would obtain additional information:

> 6.4.1.  The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
>    published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on
>    unpublished patent applications.  The disclosure must also list the
>    specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected.  If the
>    IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific
>    version number.  In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple
>    parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF
>    Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is
>    helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document
>    that are alleged to be so Covered.

Note that the last sentence only says "it is helpful". There is no
requirement. And if the last ten years worth of existing disclosures
is any indication, few disclosures include such information. (I don't
know of any right off, but maybe there are a few.)

Note also that RFC 3979 says:

>    (C) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
>        Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
>        Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR,
>        a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for
>        publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all
>        persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
>        distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing
>        Technology under one of the licensing options specified in
>        Section 6.5 below unless such a statement has already been
>        submitted.  The working group proposing the use of the technology
>        with respect to which the Intellectual Property Rights are
>        disclosed may assist the IETF Executive Director in this effort.

Note that the above  has already been done, i.e., the disclosure
itself.

>        The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
>        publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF
>        Document along the standards track.  A working group may take
>        into consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating
>        the technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
>        facilitate obtaining such assurances.  The results will, however,
>        be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, and be made available
>        online.

The above says nothing about delaying documents once a disclosure
meeting the RFC 3979 requirements has been made.

So please be clear. Do you have a specific proposed action for the WG
to take other than proceed with its work?

Wanting to be more "comfortable" is not actionable.

Thomas

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:12:36 -0400

Thomas,

Actually, there have been cases where IPR holders have worked with a WG to
clear up questions or concerns regarding IP. We recently had a case in PWE3
where a somewhat late disclosure was worked out with the IP holder by
removing a particular procedure that was covered by the IP. So anything is
possible.

In this case, I think we're all in agreement that it's exceptional to see
an IPR statement against a problem statement document. It would be useful
for the WG to have a reasonable understanding of the IPR holder's thinking
in this matter, since all we can do otherwise is read the IPR and speculate
on our own.  Is ANYTHING the WG does going to be claimed to infringe this
IPR? Are there reasonable technical alternatives? I just think it's better
to be informed than not, and earlier rather than later when we start to
write standards track drafts.

I also realize that the WG can't always expect cooperation on the part of
IPR holders. But in some cases, they do cooperate in good will. It can't
hurt to ask the question.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Thomas Narten <[email-masked]> wrote:

> holder to

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:18:35 -0400

On Jun 24, 2014:1:12 PM, at 1:12 PM, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thomas,
> 
> Actually, there have been cases where IPR holders have worked with a WG to clear up questions or concerns regarding IP. We recently had a case in PWE3 where a somewhat late disclosure was worked out with the IP holder by removing a particular procedure that was covered by the IP. So anything is possible.
> 
> In this case, I think we're all in agreement that it's exceptional to see an IPR statement against a problem statement document. It would be useful for the WG to have a reasonable understanding of the IPR holder's thinking in this matter, since all we can do otherwise is read the IPR and speculate on our own.  Is ANYTHING the WG does going to be claimed to infringe this IPR? Are there reasonable technical alternatives? I just think it's better to be informed than not, and earlier rather than later when we start to write standards track drafts.
> 
> I also realize that the WG can't always expect cooperation on the part of IPR holders. But in some cases, they do cooperate in good will. It can't hurt to ask the question.

	That is a fair point, but IMHO this question should be asked in parallel with the WG proceeding forward as there is no benefit for us to sit around waiting for the "anything is possible" case.

	--Tom

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:51:21 -0400

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> That is a fair point, but IMHO this question should be asked in parallel
> with the WG proceeding forward as there is no benefit for us to sit around
> waiting for the "anything is possible" case.
>

I agree if there is a consensus to proceed forward. There is still a week
and a half to go in the two week period you posted for discussion.

Cheers,
Andy