Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:35:58 -0600

Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:

 1. August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using
    SIP for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a single
    Huawei employee.

 2. August 30, 2007: That same Huawei employee and two additional
    authors publish an IETF draft (
    draft-melnikov-sieve-notify-sip-message-00) on using SIP for SIEVE
    notifications.

 3. September 2007 - September 2011: The SIEVE working group discusses
    and improves the IETF draft.

 4. October 6, 2011: The IESG approves the IETF draft for publication as
    an RFC.

 5. December 14th, 2011: Huawei files an IPR disclosure with the IETF
    informing it of patent CN 200710076523.4

Is that correct? Am I leaving anything out?

/a

On 1/25/12 2:17 PM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
> (sieve) to consider the following document:
> - 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE'
>    <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt>  as a Proposed Standard
>
> Last calls were earlier issued on version -05 of this document and this
> document was approved by the IESG on 2011-10-06. Subsequently,
> an IPR disclosure statement for this draft was submitted.
> This Second Last Call is intended to determine whether the community
> is still comfortable with publication of this document in light of the IPR statement.
> The relevant IPR statement is available at:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-02-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>     This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for
>     notifications, to allow notifications to be sent over SIP MESSAGE.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/
>
>
> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
>
>     http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:50:52 -0000

Please also see US patent 20090204681 visible at
http://ip.com/patapp/US20090204681 
 
In my opinion, this second last call should be suspended until this significant
breach of the IETF's IPR policy set out in BCP79 has been resolved.
 
While it is important to find out what the IETF community's view of this
situation is, there are two questions:
 
1. What does the WG think about the I-D being IPR encumbered and do they want to
develop an alternate solution that is not encumbered?
 
2. How will the IETF handle the breach of IPR policy?
 
I believe the document should be returned to the working group who are the main
victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adam
Roach
Sent: 25 January 2012 21:36
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt>
(Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
 
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
1.	August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using SIP
for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a single Huawei employee.
2.	August 30, 2007: That same Huawei employee and two additional authors
publish an IETF draft ( draft-melnikov-sieve-notify-sip-message-00) on using SIP
for SIEVE notifications.
3.	September 2007 - September 2011: The SIEVE working group discusses and
improves the IETF draft.
4.	October 6, 2011: The IESG approves the IETF draft for publication as an
RFC.
5.	December 14th, 2011: Huawei files an IPR disclosure with the IETF
informing it of patent CN 200710076523.4

/a

 
is still comfortable with publication of this document in light of the IPR
statement.

 
Abstract

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:04:09 -0700

+1

On 1/25/12 2:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> In my opinion, this second last call should be suspended until this
> significant breach of the IETF's IPR policy set out in BCP79 has been
> resolved.
> 
>  
> 
> 1. What does the WG think about the I-D being IPR encumbered and do they
> want to develop an alternate solution that is not encumbered?
> 
>  
> 
> I believe the document should be returned to the working group who are
> the main victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adrian
> 
>  
> 
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf
> Of *Adam Roach
> *Sent:* 25 January 2012 21:36
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Cc:* [email-masked]; The IESG; IETF-Announce
> *Subject:* Re: Second Last Call:
> <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification
> Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
> 
>  
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> mailing lists by 2012-02-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
> 
> sent to [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> instead. In either case, please retain the
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:05:48 -0500

Agree %100.

On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Please also see US patent 20090204681 visible at  http://ip.com/patapp/US20090204681
>  
> In my opinion, this second last call should be suspended until this significant breach of the IETF's IPR policy set out in BCP79 has been resolved.
>  
> While it is important to find out what the IETF community's view of this situation is, there are two questions:
>  
> 1. What does the WG think about the I-D being IPR encumbered and do they want to develop an alternate solution that is not encumbered?
>  
> I believe the document should be returned to the working group who are the main victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.
>  
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>  
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
> Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
>  
> August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using SIP for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a single Huawei employee.
> August 30, 2007: That same Huawei employee and two additional authors publish an IETF draft ( draft-melnikov-sieve-notify-sip-message-00) on using SIP for SIEVE notifications.
> September 2007 - September 2011: The SIEVE working group discusses and improves the IETF draft.
> October 6, 2011: The IESG approves the IETF draft for publication as an RFC.
> December 14th, 2011: Huawei files an IPR disclosure with the IETF informing it of patent CN 200710076523.4
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:27:05 -0800

At 13:35 25-01-2012, Adam Roach wrote:
>August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using 
>August 30, 2007: That same Huawei employee and two additional 

The time taken to file the two IPR disclosures is troubling given the 
amount of Note Well advertising.

I would like to thank the Pete Resnick for dealing with the problem 
openly instead of taking the politically expedient route.

>2. How will the IETF handle the breach of IPR policy?

That's the uncomfortable question.  Some alternatives are:

  (a) Ask the company not to participate in the IETF for X period

  (b) Take action against the individual(s) responsible for the
      breach

  (c) Ask the individual(s) involved for an explanation

  (d) Do nothing

>I believe the document should be returned to the working group who 
>are the main victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.

There aren't any victims here.  Before making a statement, it is up 
to the person to ask the question instead of assuming the answer.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:39:43 -0500

> From: Adrian Farrel [[email-masked]]
> 
> [...]

If the facts are as outlined by Adam Roach, this is the only thing to do.

Dale

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:43:24 -0700

Hi SM!

>  (a) Ask the company not to participate in the IETF for X period

We all participate as individuals.

>  (b) Take action against the individual(s) responsible for the

Perhaps.

>  (c) Ask the individual(s) involved for an explanation

Always a good idea. Ask questions first.

>  (d) Do nothing

That seems like a bad idea.

> There aren't any victims here.  Before making a statement, it is up to
> the person to ask the question instead of assuming the answer.

Causing the WG (and IESG, and general IETF community) to consider these
matters is taking time from many people who I'm sure have better things
to do. I for one consider that to be disruptive.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:06:23 -0600

> If the facts are as outlined by Adam Roach, this is the only thing to do.

I apologize for not making this clear in the Last Call text:

Before posting this Last Call (and the similar one for 
draft-ietf-sieve-convert), the documents *were* returned to the SIEVE WG 
to review the situation. With minimal complaint from the WG and no 
indication that the WG wished to change their decision on the documents, 
the chairs asked that I simply put it to the entire community as a Last 
Call. So I believe anything other than "go ahead with publication as is" 
will be done only if that is the consensus of the IETF community as a 
whole. The SIEVE chairs and I will be monitoring the discussion.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:40:48 -0600

On 1/25/12 3:35 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>    1. August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on
>       using SIP for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a
>       single Huawei employee.
>
>       draft-melnikov-sieve-notify-sip-message-00) on using SIP for
>       SIEVE notifications.
>

Correct, except let's call it an "Internet Draft" for precision's sake.

>    3. September 2007 - September 2011: The SIEVE working group
>       discusses and improves the IETF draft.
>

The draft appears to have been adopted by the WG in December 2008 as 
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-00, but otherwise correct.

(See: 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/history/ 
)

>    4. October 6, 2011: The IESG approves the IETF draft for
>       publication as an RFC.
>
>    5. December 14th, 2011: Huawei files an IPR disclosure with the
>       IETF informing it of patent CN 200710076523.4
>

Correct.

The dates for the -convert draft (also just re-last called) were 
slightly different, but the circumstances were largely the same.

pr

>> sent [email-masked]  instead. In either case, please retain the

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:44:13 -0600

> http://ip.com/patapp/US20090204681
Well, at least U.S. patent application. And, for that matter, 
International Application PCT/CN2008/072066:

   http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009024088

The geographic scope of the intended patent protection for this 
invention appears to be broader than was revealed by the IPR disclosure.

/a

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:41:54 -0800

>Correct, except let's call it an "Internet Draft" for precision's sake.

What this thread is actually about is a violation of IETF process 
(BCP) or IETF policy (Failure to comply with patent disclosure 
requirements is a violation of IETF policy, and the potential legal 
consequences to companies are considerable).

For context:

   "Qian Sun is apparently no longer an active IETF participant, and his
    co-workers who are active IETF participants asked their company to
    disclose against the two documents as soon as they discovered what
    had happened. That's where were are now."

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:48:55 -0000

All that is great.

Why is Qian Sun still listed on the front page as an author. Wouldn't it be more
appropriate to move the name to the Acknowledgements section where the text
could read...

Some of the text of this document was provided by Qian Sun who violated IETF IPR
process by not disclosing related IPR that he had also authored and so is not
listed as a named author of this document.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: 26 January 2012 04:42
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Violation of IETF process (was: Second Last Call:
<draft-ietf-sieve-notify-
> sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
> Standard)
>

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:12:45 -0800

> victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.

The working group might be the closest and could reasonably have the highest 
sense of frustration -- Pete's later posting notwithstanding -- but forgive my 
noting that they are not the main victims.

Variously the IETF and the Internet community are the main victims.  The IETF 
for the rather sustained violation of its policies and the Internet community 
for the delay in being able to use a mechanism that presumably would be useful.

Somehow, an apology does not seem sufficient.  Something more substantial is 
warranted.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:57:36 -0800

Hi Adrian,
>appropriate to move the name to the Acknowledgements section where the text

As editorship is a WG Chair decision, it is up to the SIEVE WG Chairs 
to comment on why Qian Sun is still listed on the front page as an author.

>listed as a named author of this document.

The above text does not mention company affiliation.

There is the following in the text in IPR statements:

   "Note: The individual submitting this template represents and
    warrants that he or she is authorized by the Patent Holder to
    agree to the above-selected licensing declaration."

The name provided in the IPR statement is "Director of licensing".

The violation has a negative impact on the IETF (see comment from 
Dave Crocker on this thread).  It raises questions which should not be asked.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:19:11 +0000

>  (c) Ask the individual(s) involved for an explanation

(e) The IETF formally demands a royalty free, reasonable and  
non-discriminatory license to the technology for anyone, for the  
purpose of implementing the specification.

Have Huawei made any statement about their IPR screw-up?

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:31:34 -0500

--On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 17:06 -0600 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> draft-ietf-sieve-convert), the documents *were* returned to
> the SIEVE WG to review the situation. With minimal complaint
> from the WG and no indication that the WG wished to change
> their decision on the documents, the chairs asked that I
> simply put it to the entire community as a Last Call. So I
> believe anything other than "go ahead with publication as is"
> will be done only if that is the consensus of the IETF
> community as a whole. The SIEVE chairs and I will be
> monitoring the discussion.

Pete,

(responding to this message, but I've read the subsequent ones)

It seems to me that a key question here is whether the original
author's decision to not disclose was made in violation of
company policy or whether the sequence of posting the I-D,
getting the document through the WG and Last Call, and then
posting the disclosure is a matter of company policy.  If such
behavior became a pattern, the IETF's IPR policy would be
essentially dead.

I believe that "go ahead with publication as is" would be
equivalent to encouraging such a pattern to develop and is
consequently not acceptable.

Consequently, I believe that at least the following should be
required:

(1) Revision of the IPR statement so it identifies the
responsible individual by name, department, and title.  I do not
believe that the rather anonymous "Director of Licensing" is
compliant with the intent of the IPR disclosure rules.   I will
leave it to the lawyers to advise on whether a document issued
without the name (not just title) of a responsible individual
would even be held to be valid in the various jurisdictions in
which the patent might be recognized.

(2) A request to the company involved for someone who can
formally speak for that company to publicly clarify that this
sequence of behavior occurred in violation of company policy.
If there are internal rewards to individuals for filing and/or
being awarded patents, I assume that a decision that the actions
violate company policy would cause such awards to be withheld in
this case, even though the IETF would have no way to verify
whether or not that occurred.

(3) A request to the company involved to remove the reciprocity
clause from the license stated in the disclosure statement.  As
a show of good faith, they should agree to derive no benefit
from the patent other than what praise accrues from having it
awarded.

(4) Removal of the offending individual from the list of authors
to the acknowledgments with text similar to that suggested by
Adrian.  Unless the company involved is willing to provide the
clarification suggested in (2) above, and possibly the license
modification suggested in (3) above, all names of authors
associated with that company should be removed to the
acknowledgements and the company affiliation explicitly
identified there.  In either case, this should be viewed as a
response to a policy violation and not entangled with any more
general discussion of listed authors on I-Ds or RFCs.

(5) Unless the clarification suggested in (2) can be provided,
each IETF participant who is associated with the relevant
company and who is in an IETF-related leadership or
decision-making position (WG Chairs; Editors; IESG, IAB, IAOC,
Nomcom, members; etc.) should be asked to make a conscientious
personal review as to whether this type of action sufficiently
compromises his or her position that resignation or some other
action would be appropriate and, as appropriate, to review IETF
policies with whatever management chains are relevant.  I am
_not_ suggesting that anyone be asked to resign, only that they
engage in careful consideration of the issues and their
implications.

Just my opinion.
regards,

    john

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:32:30 +0100

John,

a worry I have with going out with such a massive demand set for this 
IPR code violation is that we'd be encouraging the other IPR behaviour 
we've seen: That of saying nothing.

The current Huawei people who caused this disclosure to be filed deserve 
our praise for doing the Right Thing now, even while the people in the 
past who did not deserve our condemnation.

On one point, however, I'm aligned:

> from the patent other than what praise accrues from having it
Indeed, this reciprocity clause is of the form that I used to complain 
to Cisco's IPR lawyer about Cisco making when I was at Cisco: It asserts 
the right of withdrawal of this license for *any* use of *any* patent 
against Huawei - that means that anyone who dares to depend on this 
license is effectively granting a license to *all* their patents to the 
holder of this patent.

The proper scope of reciprocity clauses is a fertile ground for debate 
(and nearly impossible to hold a debate on, unfortunately), but this 
type is one that I am not happy to see.

                       Harald

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:52:47 -0600

On Jan 26, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> The working group might be the closest and could reasonably have the highest sense of frustration -- Pete's later posting notwithstanding -- but forgive my noting that they are not the main victims.
> 
> Variously the IETF and the Internet community are the main victims.  The IETF for the rather sustained violation of its policies and the Internet community for the delay in being able to use a mechanism that presumably would be useful.

+1

Bob

> 
> Somehow, an apology does not seem sufficient.  Something more substantial is warranted.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:08:04 -0500

--On Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:32 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> a worry I have with going out with such a massive demand set
> for this IPR code violation is that we'd be encouraging the
> other IPR behaviour we've seen: That of saying nothing.

I understand this concern, but that takes us into lawyer
territory.  Since the courts, at least in some countries, have
ruled that patents are unenforceable if the technology was
pushed forward into standards in violation of disclosure rules
(that is a deliberately-vague summary, not an attempt to state
the legal situation), I don't know if companies would be better
off saying nothing, ever, until they ambushed someone in court,
or disclosing later.  If the IETF needs to make decisions on
that basis, I'd like us to get clear advice (if such a thing is
possible -- a combination about the situation, not the source of
advice) from Counsel.

> The current Huawei people who caused this disclosure to be
> filed deserve our praise for doing the Right Thing now, even
> while the people in the past who did not deserve our
> condemnation.

Absolutely.  While I recognize it as difficult, that is
precisely why I'd like to have Huawei clarify that those who did
not disclose in the past did so in violation of what I hope is
the company policy to conform to the rules of any standards body
in which their employees are participating.  If that is actually
the case (as I assume it is), then my proposed "demand set" is
not "massive": we adjust the authorship to remove the inventor,
we try to get the reciprocity clause narrowed or removed, and we
move on.  

The question of whether the IETF should accept and file a
disclosure statement that is "signed" only by title, especially
a title whose meaning is unclear outside the particular company,
ought to be largely separate from this discussion: it is really
an issue that I'd hope that the IETF Trust would discuss with
Counsel and then appropriately advise the Secretariat and the
community about how such statements should be handled.  If we
actually don't have any rules or guidance today, it may be
unreasonable to ask Huawei to amend their filing on that basis.

Note that removing the broad reciprocity provision from this
particular IPR disclosure /licensing statement ought to be less
problematic from Huawei's standpoint than potentially having the
patent (and potentially related ones) invalidated or rendered
unenforceable -- an action that would be completely outside our
control.

>> (3) A request to the company involved to remove the
>> reciprocity clause from the license stated in the disclosure
>> statement.  As a show of good faith, they should agree to
>> derive no benefit from the patent other than what praise
>> accrues from having it awarded.
> Indeed, this reciprocity clause is of the form that I used to
> complain to Cisco's IPR lawyer about Cisco making when I was
> at Cisco: It asserts the right of withdrawal of this license
> for *any* use of *any* patent against Huawei - that means that
> anyone who dares to depend on this license is effectively
> granting a license to *all* their patents to the holder of
> this patent.

> The proper scope of reciprocity clauses is a fertile ground
> for debate (and nearly impossible to hold a debate on,
> unfortunately), but this type is one that I am not happy to
> see.

While I agree, I think it is a separate discussion.  That
discussion probably needs to start with a core principle of the
IETF IPR policy that we do not constrain the conditions that can
be adopted and disclosed at all.  If we are not going to change
that, then Huawei (or Cisco, or many others) are certainly
permitted to insert such a clause.  If there is a problem in the
IETF, it is only that WGs may not have been sufficiently
diligent about evaluating the possible effects of such
provisions on the practice of potentially-standard technologies.

I think that, for this situation and any that might be similar
to it in the future, we need to concentrate on the particulars
of the situation and the degree to which it is appropriate for a
company to benefit from the inappropriate behavior of someone
who presumably works for them, is being sponsored by them to
participate in the IETF, etc.  I deliberately wrote my note so
that it could evolve into a general set of guidelines on such
issues should the community think that appropriate.

I'm also conflicted about the information (or lack thereof) that
we have available.  My personal sense of justice says that we
should really understand, for example, whether there is any
chance that the inventor was not aware of the patent
application.  Others have made similar suggestions.  On the
other hand, it is possible that trying to dig out and evaluate
that information would turn this situation into far more of a
judicial-like provision than I'm comfortable with.  Again,
advice from the Trust and Counsel would be very much in order if
it is feasible (and the reasons would be interesting and useful
information if it is not).

    john

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:43:13 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:19 AM
> To: SM; Adrian Farrel; IETF-Discussion
> Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
> 08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
> Standard
> 
> (e) The IETF formally demands a royalty free, reasonable and non-
> discriminatory license to the technology for anyone, for the purpose of
> implementing the specification.

Doesn't the IPR claim that was filed include one of those already?

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:43:48 -0800

> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Violation of IETF process (was: Second Last Call: <draft-
> ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism:
> SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard)
> 
> The violation has a negative impact on the IETF (see comment from Dave
> Crocker on this thread).  It raises questions which should not be
> asked.

Oh, I don't agree with that last bit at all.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:50:04 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:43 AM
> To: IETF-Discussion
> Subject: RE: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
> > discriminatory license to the technology for anyone, for the purpose
> > of implementing the specification.
> 

Disregard; other posts in this thread since yours have educated me.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:04:17 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:08 AM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: Pete Resnick; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> 08.txt> (Sieve Not ifica tion Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
> Standard
> 
> I'm also conflicted about the information (or lack thereof) that we
> have available.  My personal sense of justice says that we should
> really understand, for example, whether there is any chance that the
> inventor was not aware of the patent application.  Others have made
> similar suggestions.  On the other hand, it is possible that trying to
> dig out and evaluate that information would turn this situation into
> far more of a judicial-like provision than I'm comfortable with.
> Again, advice from the Trust and Counsel would be very much in order if

As much as we try to bring to the attention of participants the contents of BCPs 78 and 79, or The Tao of IETF, they are easy to overlook.  It's not impossible to conceive that someone writes a draft using XML, runs it through xml2rfc, and posts it without ever reading or even noticing the boilerplate that it adds /and/ the documents it references.  That's a lot of reading and, important as it is, people can get lost or even lazy.  The Note Well, similarly, is actually a distillation of quite a lot of material that one needs to understand.

Thus, to my mind, it's entirely possible that this person simply didn't realize that a patent filing, possibly even with his own name on it, was germane to the IETF and its IPR policy.

And in a large corporation, I can similarly envision that the champion of some work into the IETF is not the same person, or even in the same group, as the person making a patent filing on the same or related material, and insufficient co-ordination exists between them.  I understand that part of what you're talking about is emphasizing the need to ensure such policies exist, but I also understand that not every person or organization will have had the experience to know that it's important to establish such up front.

What I take away from this so far is that in the future I'll be far more likely to ask "Are you totally sure this is IPR-claim-free?" when asked to support the advancement of some document (whether that's as a sponsoring AD someday, or a working group co-chair, or co-author, or editor, or even as another participant).  It seems clear to me the BCPs and the draft boilerplate will, alas, not always be sufficient.

-MSK

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:08:28 -0600

As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who will have 
to judge the consensus on this question, my comments will remain 
strictly based on the facts of the events as I know them and on the 
relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the IETF community to decide on 
what the appropriate course of action shall be. That said, I have some 
comments and questions:

On 1/26/12 3:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> posting the disclosure is a matter of company policy.

We were told by the other company employees who facilitated the 
disclosures, at the time of the disclosures, that this was strictly an 
individual's failure to comply with the IETF IPR Policy, that the author 
in question claims not to have understood the IETF IPR Policy, and that 
the company proceeded to make these disclosures as soon as it discovered 
that this IPR existed. I have no information to contradict that claim.

> which the patent might be recognized.

Are you asking that the IPR statements be updated with the name, 
department, and title of the "Director of Licensing", or that of the 
author of the documents and patents in question? It seems to me that the 
former is a procedural question that is separate from the disposition of 
these particular documents, and seems like a reasonable requirement for 
any IPR disclosure. If you're asking for the latter, are you asking that 
the sanction against the author be a new obligation on the author? 
Section 6 of RFC 3979 clearly says, "A participant's obligation to make 
a disclosure is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner or the 
participant's employer or sponsor makes an appropriate disclosure in 
place of the participant doing so."

> whether or not that occurred.

The IETF Chair has in the past sent messages to companies to inquire 
about their handling of IPR disclosures, so I imagine such a message 
could be sent if the IETF community desires it.

> from the patent other than what praise accrues from having it

I'll ask to bring this topic up with the IETF attorney. I am pretty sure 
we can *ask* that they do this as a show of good faith. I am also pretty 
certain that we can't negotiate the terms of a license agreement.

> general discussion of listed authors on I-Ds or RFCs.

Of course, removal of individual document editors is well within the 
rights and responsibilities of the chairs, so if this is the consensus 
of the IETF, I am sure it can be done. I would like you to elaborate on 
the issue of the authors who are employees of the company but *not* the 
author of the patent in question. Are you saying that their names should 
be removed because, as co-workers of the author in question, they ought 
to have known (or been more diligent in confirming) that the IPR existed 
and therefore should be sanctioned for failing to comply with the IPR 
rules, or are you saying that this is a sanction that should be levied 
against the company and therefore its employees? I will note that RFC 
3979 does not put a responsibility on individual participants to go 
discover IPR that may exist, nor does it make any overt requirements of 
companies since it applies only to the individual participants in the 
IETF (caveat the recognitions in sections 6.6 and 7).

> engage in careful consideration of the issues and their

I believe this last one is outside of the scope of the decisions the 
IETF has to take regarding the disposition of the particular documents. 
It may indeed be reasonable for every IETF participant to review the 
policies and actions of their own employer as they relate to IETF 
participation and make a conscientious decision whether they can 
continue to participate in the IETF, whatever their role, given those 
policies and procedures.

pr

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:15:00 -0800

Hi Pete,
At 08:08 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
>As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who will 
>have to judge the consensus on this question, my comments will 
>remain strictly based on the facts of the events as I know them and 
>on the relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the IETF community

The status of the memo in the drafts have this statement:

   "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79."

Have the authors been asked whether they have any issue with the above?

The is a question in the write-up: "Has an IPR disclosure related to 
this document been filed?"  Has the Document Shepherd been asked 
about that before the Second Last Call?

The minutes from the last WG session does not mention who chaired the 
session.  Did the WG Chair bring the Note Well to the attention of the WG?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:37:06 -0500

--On Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:08 -0600 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who
> will have to judge the consensus on this question, my comments
> will remain strictly based on the facts of the events as I
> know them and on the relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the
> IETF community to decide on what the appropriate course of
> action shall be. That said, I have some comments and questions:
> 
>> It seems to me that a key question here is whether the
>> original author's decision to not disclose was made in
>> violation of company policy or whether the sequence of
>> posting the I-D, getting the document through the WG and Last
>> Call, and then posting the disclosure is a matter of company
>> policy.
> 
> We were told by the other company employees who facilitated
> the disclosures, at the time of the disclosures, that this was
> strictly an individual's failure to comply with the IETF IPR
> Policy, that the author in question claims not to have
> understood the IETF IPR Policy, and that the company proceeded
> to make these disclosures as soon as it discovered that this
> IPR existed. I have no information to contradict that claim.

Excellent.   I had hoped that was the situation.  It obviously
makes things much easier (and some of my earlier comments
irrelevant).   With all the effort we go to ("Note Well" and
otherwise) to be sure that people are informed about the policy,
I have trouble generating sympathy for someone who says "didn't
underatand", but that is another matter (and perhaps just my
problem).

>> responsible individual by name, department, and title.  I do
>> not believe that the rather anonymous "Director of Licensing"
>> is compliant with the intent of the IPR disclosure rules.   I
>> will leave it to the lawyers to advise on whether a document
>> issued without the name (not just title) of a responsible
>> individual would even be held to be valid in the various
>> jurisdictions in which the patent might be recognized.
>>    
> 
> Are you asking that the IPR statements be updated with the
> name, department, and title of the "Director of Licensing", or
> that of the author of the documents and patents in question?

The former.

> It seems to me that the former is a procedural question that
> is separate from the disposition of these particular
> documents, and seems like a reasonable requirement for any IPR
> disclosure.

That is correct.  I believe I suggested in a later note that
this is an area to which it would be good if the Trust paid some
attention and advised the Secretariat and others accordingly.

>> being awarded patents, I assume that a decision that the
>> actions violate company policy would cause such awards to be
>> withheld in this case, even though the IETF would have no way
>> to verify whether or not that occurred.
> 
> The IETF Chair has in the past sent messages to companies to
> inquire about their handling of IPR disclosures, so I imagine
> such a message could be sent if the IETF community desires it.

That was my assumption.  On the other hand, if it is already
clear that this was either a misunderstanding, a violation of
company policy, or both, it might not be necessary.

> I'll ask to bring this topic up with the IETF attorney. I am
> pretty sure we can *ask* that they do this as a show of good
> faith. I am also pretty certain that we can't negotiate the
> terms of a license agreement.

I was only suggesting asking.  If they say "no", which they
obviously have the right to do, it is, as others have pointed
out, the WG's problem to consider what that is an issue.  If the
WG is indifferent on the issue, it seems to me that the relevant
AD has a problem, but that problem is _not_ bound to the
disclosure issue.

>> (4) Removal of the offending individual from the list of
>> authors to the acknowledgments with text similar to that
>> suggested by Adrian.  Unless the company involved is willing
>> to provide the clarification suggested in (2) above, and
>> possibly the license modification suggested in (3) above, all
>> names of authors associated with that company should be
>> removed to the acknowledgements and the company affiliation
>> explicitly identified there.  In either case, this should be
>> viewed as a response to a policy violation and not entangled
>> with any more general discussion of listed authors on I-Ds or
>> RFCs.

> Of course, removal of individual document editors is well
> within the rights and responsibilities of the chairs, so if
> this is the consensus of the IETF, I am sure it can be done. 

That was my assumption.

> I
> would like you to elaborate on the issue of the authors who
> are employees of the company but *not* the author of the
> patent in question. Are you saying that their names should be
> removed because, as co-workers of the author in question, they
> ought to have known (or been more diligent in confirming) that
> the IPR existed and therefore should be sanctioned for failing
> to comply with the IPR rules, or are you saying that this is a
> sanction that should be levied against the company and
> therefore its employees?

If the other authors from that company have already told us that
they were not aware of the patent application until very late in
the process and that they moved diligently toward getting an
appropriate disclosure filed as soon as they did find out, my
suggestion is moot.

I was concerned about the (thoroughly unlikely in this case)
possibility that the other authors from that company were
personally aware of the IPR but had been, e.g., advised that
they were not to make the disclosure because someone else would
take responsibility for it.

> I will note that RFC 3979 does not
> put a responsibility on individual participants to go discover
> IPR that may exist, nor does it make any overt requirements of
> companies since it applies only to the individual participants
> in the IETF (caveat the recognitions in sections 6.6 and 7).

Understood.  My separate concerns about the implications of that
policy should a company ever choose to deliberately hide
relevant IPR from IETF participants do not apply to this case
and should not be part of the discussion.
 
>> action would be appropriate and, as appropriate, to review
>> IETF policies with whatever management chains are relevant.
>> I am _not_ suggesting that anyone be asked to resign, only
>> that they engage in careful consideration of the issues and
>> their implications.

> I believe this last one is outside of the scope of the
> decisions the IETF has to take regarding the disposition of
> the particular documents. It may indeed be reasonable for
> every IETF participant to review the policies and actions of
> their own employer as they relate to IETF participation and
> make a conscientious decision whether they can continue to
> participate in the IETF, whatever their role, given those
> policies and procedures.

Complete agreement.  I would, for the record, make much the same
suggestion about behavior in other situations that appeared to
push the boundaries of codes of professional ethics of the
professional societies of which many of us are members.  Like
the IETF's IPR rules, those provisions are intended to be taken
seriously rather than as decoration that can be safely ignored.
The issue is an individual one, not an IETF one, and the current
issue is relevant only insofar as it should encourage all of us
--not just those involved in this document-- to take our various
personal and professional obligations seriously and to consider
the implications of circumstances in which various of them might
come into conflict.

best,
    john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:40:20 -0700

[ - [email-masked] ]

On 1/26/12 10:15 AM, SM wrote:
>> relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the IETF community
> 
> this document been filed?"  Has the Document Shepherd been asked about
> that before the Second Last Call?
> 

In my opinion, we need to think more creatively about ways to encourage
compliance with the IPR disclosure rules. Tim Polk and I wrote an I-D on
the topic last year. Feedback would be welcome.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-00

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:25:33 -0500

> From: Pete Resnick [[email-masked]]
> 

OK, that resolves all my objections.  The "higher pay grades" (IESG
and IAB) may have policy concerns, but that is not my expertise.

Dale

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:39:30 -0600

> and IAB) may have policy concerns, but that is not my expertise.

Just in case others are having similar thoughts:

The IESG and IAB are *not* the ones that get to make the decision about 
what ought to be done here. The community needs to come to a consensus 
about the right outcome and the leadership folks will judge that 
consensus and instantiate whatever actions need to be taken. It's 
certainly OK if you feel you don't have enough information yet to decide 
what the appropriate action is, but if you're a member of this 
community, it is your responsibility to contribute to the decision in 
the end. You may decide that the conversation on the list has concluded 
the way you like; you're not required to post just to say that you 
agree. But don't expect the leadership to make this decision for you. We 
will give guidance as needed, but it's your decision.

I'll post my understanding of the consensus as we go along. So far, I've 
seen a few suggestions about the disposition of the documents, sanctions 
on the author(s), and requests to be made to the employer of the 
author(s). But I've certainly not seen enough to declare a consensus yet.

pr

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:01:16 -0800

Hi Peter,
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-00

 From the draft:

   "To support the efficient development of IETF standards and
    avoid unnecessary delays, chairs and ADs should look for
    opportunities to promote awareness and compliance with the
    IETF's IPR policies."

WG Chairs interact with IETF participants more often than ADs.  It is 
not clear whether it is their responsibility to promote awareness and 
compliance.  The IESG could ask two WG Chairs, chosen at random, when 
it meets with the WG Chairs to comment on what they did to promote awareness.

Some points in the draft, such as the two-step approach to confirm 
compliance may help to catch issues before they become a concern.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:54:14 -0800

On 1/25/2012 11:57 PM, SM wrote:
> As editorship is a WG Chair decision, it is up to the SIEVE WG Chairs to
> comment on why Qian Sun is still listed on the front page as an author.
> 
> Crocker on this thread).  It raises questions which should not be asked.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm

It actually speaks to why total transparency is needed. Anytime anyone
submits anything they need to disclose who they are and who they
represent. What authority they have and this is a serious issue since it
has legal ramifications.

The IETF has long ignored these requirements by claiming it was too
upright for those types of controls to be needed and clearly that simply
is not true.

IMHO - this is the reason that anyone can ask anyone else who they are
representing here. The IETF has no "covert participation" exceptions as
far as I know and in the world if legally protect-able IP everything has
to be defined.

T

-- 
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
account come with personal disclaimers.

Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:41:51 -0800

> Have the authors been asked whether they have any issue with the above?

True it is important but the issue here again is the IP landscape and
transparency.

What if they say NO and they will not sign. How does the IETF deal with
this as a liability. The IETF says' Uh gee we are not responsible for
the fact  we intentionally and with direct participation created a
system which makes it impossible to retract or invalidate the use
license we issued to the world no matter what'

Its real clear that is the effect of the publishing process the issue is
what people think they are accountable for here.

Todd

---

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:52:39 -0600

> <[email-masked]>  wrote:

<snip>

> underatand", but that is another matter (and perhaps just my

No, I don't think it's your problem. I've only been a mildly active 
participant in the IETF for a couple of years now, but the first time I 
read the Note Well it raised some question in my mind and made me go 
spend time reading the relevant BCPs and related documents until I 
understood my obligations. During that time, it was abundantly clear to 
me that if I did not understand any of these documents, the IETF had 
plenty of resources (this mailing list included) for me to utilize to 
ask my questions and get answers.

I would say that the more serious concern here is that the individual in 
question may not have understood the IPR policy, but believed that they 
*did* understand it, and so did not ask any questions about it. If they 
did not believe that they understood it, and did not ask any questions 
to achieve an acceptable level of understanding, that's a much more 
egregious situation.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: [email-masked] | SIP: [email-masked] | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:16:12 -0800

At 11:39 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
>The IESG and IAB are *not* the ones that get to make the decision 
>about what ought to be done here. The community needs to come to a 
>consensus about the right outcome and the leadership folks will 
>judge that consensus and instantiate whatever actions need to be 
>taken. It's certainly OK if you feel you don't have enough 
>information yet to decide what

I suggest not accepting any Internet-Draft submission until a 
decision has been taken.  It is left to the Working Group Chair to 
take action if there is any attempt to circumvent that.

I suggest that the IESG does not process any Internet-Drafts until a 
decision has been taken.

>  the appropriate action is, but if you're a member of this 
> community, it is your responsibility to contribute to the decision 
> in the end. You may decide that the conversation on the list has 
> concluded the way you like; you're not required to post just to say 
> that you agree. But don't expect the leadership to make this 
> decision for you. We will give guidance as needed, but it's your decision.

I have not seen any feedback from IETF participants affiliated with 
Huawei.  I'll highlight a comment made by John Klensin:

    implications."

There is an IAB member with an Huawei affiliation.

There is an IESG member with an Huawei affiliation.

There are two NomCom members with an Huawei affiliation.

Individuals with an Huawei affiliation are participating in multimob, 
paws, cdni, hybi, pce, armd, ccamp, csi, dhc, 6man, dnsext, v6ops, 
softwire, 6renum, xrblock, ospf, pcp, roll, opsawg, core, mpls, 
trill, pcn, bmwg, bfd, idr, pwe3, ppsp, decade, p2psip, dime, sieve, 
isis, avtcore, netext, 6lowpan, radext, l3vpn, l2vpn, ancp, ipsecme, 
mmusic, tictoc, grow, behave, forces, mboned, mif, geopriv, vcarddav, 
hokey, kitten, abfab, emu, karp, avtext and alto.

And a comment from Dave Crocker:

   "Somehow, an apology does not seem sufficient.  Something more
    substantial is warranted."

I agree with Dave that something more substantial is 
warranted.  Could these individuals share their thoughts about what 
action would be appropriate?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:29:42 +0100 (MET)

> that this IPR existed. I have no information to contradict that claim.

Somehow that sounds unconvincing to me.  While I've never been through
the patent application process myself, from what I've heard, it is
non-trivial and usually taken care of by the company's legal department.

Normally, patent lawyers of a company's legal department should have
sufficient clue about participation in SDOs that they should know
to ask employees the right questions.

-Martin

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:42:46 -0800

Hi SM,

> Huawei.  I'll highlight a comment made by John Klensin:

There is feedback along those lines on the SIEVE WG mailing list. Please 
see the thread started by Pete on this issue last year: 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sieve/current/msg05178.html>. That 
thread covers all the WG debate on this issue up until the two recent last 
calls.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:44:26 -0800

Hi SM,

> session.  Did the WG Chair bring the Note Well to the attention of the WG?

I was the chair present at that meeting. Apologies for not including that 
detail in the minutes. All the meetings I chair include the Note Well as 
the second slide in presentations I put together (which seems to be common 
practice), and indeed you can see that in the uploaded slides.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:36:25 -0500

>>>>> "Pete" == Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> writes:
    Pete> decision about what ought to be done here. The community needs
    Pete> to come to a consensus about the right outcome and the
    Pete> leadership folks will judge that consensus and instantiate
    Pete> whatever actions need to be taken. It's certainly OK if you

At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes
could be.  I think that they can include:
   1) not publishing the document.
   2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
   3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or
      might not succeed).
   4) go ahead and publish things as they are.

I am concerned that the individual may be scapegoated here, but I also
do not buy that they didn't understand things.   
The company spent money to file a patent, and they hired someone to do
this, and they certainly knew where the "invention" was documented.  

There is a need for a consequence for not following the IPR.
I read the document, but not the patent, so I don't see what's so novel
about it all, and I also don't know how hard it would be to work around.

My preference is to some method to remove any value the patent might
have. 

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:45:33 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM
> To: [email-masked]

I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something until the license terms are made more IETF-friendly, unless the WG can find a way to do equivalent work that is unencumbered, but then the WG might not have the energy left.

The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number.  I don't know if that's true or not in this case.

Those only cover the document though, and not the offender(s).  Still chewing on an opinion about that.

-MSK

---

From: Hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:01:53 -0500

> My preference is to some method to remove any value the patent might

+1.

Given the nature of the new 1996 timeline for patentability of prior 
art, the richness of technologies, the integration of technologies. 
e.g. the Markus Analysis does not apply as strong as it did which in 
short, says the following (paraphrasing from my old Westinghouse Chief 
Lawyer presentation to the Venture Group):

    - You can not take prior art A, B and create a patent D, unless
      there is a new and unique part C,

    - Given the first rule, parts A and B can not be restricted on
      existing systems and/or deny existing systems to implement what
      would be natural course of their existence.  IOW, if a Markus
      Analysis shows that Part C is a natural evolution of the existing
      systems, they can not denied adding it.

This is what has me to sleep like a baby with the new frivolous 
patents of prior arts that is now allowed.  Unfortunately, what has 
allowed the new patent era to exist is the less emphasis of performing 
the Markus Analysis by patent examiners.

Overall, the mere fact of submitting an IETF document, by definition, 
it means implementators are not subject to any sort of restrictions. 
As it is right now, when I see new I-D comes in, if it even smells 
like its has IPR related stuff, I totally 100% skip it. Ignore it. I 
don't bother with it.

In my view, the IETF should view new submissions in the same way.  So 
its not only a,

     "Are you totally sure this is IPR-claim-free?"

but also

     "Are you using IETF related parts?

Because if the I-D submitter is using existing IETF parts, then he/she 
must be aware that any IPR existing or in the future against anyone 
that exist using such parts or now also include future system that 
decides to use the new I-D.

In my view, Mr. Resnick, should consider the concept of the Markus 
Analysis.  If this I-D is allowed to go thru, how will it alter 
existing systems?  Will existing systems with all the parts, except 
the integration of the new by existing part, be denied the natural 
inclusion of the new part?

In other words, a system that has IETF technology SMTP and/or IMAP and 
SIEVE already in place, if they add an existing IETF technology SIP, 
will they be restricted?

There has to be something completely novel and not an IETF technology 
for it to hold any strength.   But if that is not the case, where each 
part is an IETF technology, the mere integration of all these IETF 
parts, by definition, must not have any sort of patent strength or for 
that matter, recognition.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
jabber: [email-masked]

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:06:01 -0600

On 1/26/12 4:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Second Last Call:<draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-

Yes, certainly those are choices.

>>     3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or

I don't think this is something that we can do *as the IETF*. Certainly 
others are welcome to pursue that.

> The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number.  I don't know if that's true or not in this case.

These are also choices.

> Those only cover the document though, and not the offender(s).  Still chewing on an opinion about that.

Other choices that involve both the document and the author(s) are 
similar to ones outlined by other folks:

- The author of the patent can be removed from the author list at the 
top of the document.
(In effect, this would be the IETF asking the WG chair to fire the 
document editor for failure to comply with IETF process. The result 
would be the author not getting the recognition as a document editor, 
though they would still appear in the Acknowledgments section.)

- Removal of posting rights of the author from the WG or IETF mailing 
lists, even perhaps via a PR Action for being "disruptive" of the IETF 
process.

Coincidentally, but not by chance, Adrian and I have been working on a 
draft to discuss such sanctions that we are just about to post. I hope 
that sparks some ideas as well.

pr

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:50:16 -0500

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:16 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I have not seen any feedback from IETF participants affiliated with Huawei.

Hi.
I'm affiliated with Huawei.  I'm a (recently added; see below)
co-editor on the two Sieve documents.  I'm a chair of three working
groups.

> I suggest that the IESG does not process any Internet-Drafts until a

That seems excessive.  Shut down all document progress until we
resolve this issue?  I think that cure is far worse than the disease.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
wrote:>> We were told by the other company employees who facilitated
>> the disclosures, at the time of the disclosures, that this was>> strictly an individual's failure to comply with the IETF IPR>> Policy, that the author in question claims not to have>> understood the IETF IPR Policy, and that the company proceeded>> to make these disclosures as soon as it discovered that this>> IPR existed. I have no information to contradict that claim.>> Excellent.   I had hoped that was the situation.  It obviously> makes things much easier (and some of my earlier comments> irrelevant).   With all the effort we go to ("Note Well" and> otherwise) to be sure that people are informed about the policy,> I have trouble generating sympathy for someone who says "didn't> underatand", but that is another matter (and perhaps just my> problem).
That is, indeed the situation.  Qian Sun, the original Huawei author,
got a new assignment in the company, and stopped participating in the
IETF a few years ago, after he and Alexey had started the documents.
I can't speak for him about why he didn't understand the disclosure
rules; as I understand it, he seems to have thought the patents didn't
need to be disclosed until the RFC was published.

> appropriate disclosure filed as soon as they did find out, my

Some time last year, Kepeng and I offered to work with Alexey to
finish the two docs, which had seen slow progress for some while.
Only when the documents were approved and in the RFC Editor queue did
Kepeng learn about Qian's patent applications.  He immediately alerted
me.  I asked the RFC Editor to stop publication (one was in AUTH48 at
the time), and alerted Pete Resnick and the Sieve chairs.  Kepeng
pushed Huawei's IP law department to expedite the disclosure, which
they turned around in two days for us.  I assure all of you that
Kepeng and I were blindsided by this.

> possibility that the other authors from that company were> personally aware of the IPR but had been, e.g., advised that> they were not to make the disclosure because someone else would> take responsibility for it.
Unlikely in this case, yes.  I leave it to you whether you trust what
I say, but I can only repeat that we did not know, and acted very
quickly when we found out.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something until
> the license terms are made more IETF-friendly

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue
here.  As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying
in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards
implementations.  The issue we're discussing isn't the terms, but that
the disclosures weren't made when they should have been.

I can't speak officially for Huawei in general, but I can say that it
is Huawei's company policy that we *do* comply with the rules of the
organizations we participate in.  I can also say that starting a
couple of years ago, we have taken many opportunities to remind all of
our IETF participants of the disclosure requirements, and we have a
coordinator in place to help them if they need help.  And some of the
disclosures you're seeing now are due to a concerted effort to find
where we've missed, and to rectify the situations by disclosing now.

> The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes the
> status matters as much as or more than the RFC number.  I don't know if that's
> true or not in this case.

That, too, strikes me as a cure that's worse than the disease.
"Experimental" isn't a punishment, and I think it would be a horrid
idea to use the document's status in that way.  Protocols are
Experimental or Standards Track for good reasons.  Documents are
Informational or not for good reasons.  Let's please not adulterate
the document status as a way of addressing personnel issues.  And by
altering the status or refusing to publish a completed document, we
affect the working group and the entire community of prospective
implementors.  If a protocol (or informational document or whatever)
was worth publishing in the first place, pulling it or reclassifying
it as a punishment does the community a disservice.

The reason to remove or reclassify a document is if the working group
(or the community) thinks that for that particular document, the
intellectual property issue really does affect whether the document
should be published, or what its classification should be,
irrespective of any punishment.

Barry

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:26:41 -0800

> the disclosures weren't made when they should have been.

While I appreciate the recitation of unfortunate events that led us
here, I don't quite share the view that the license terms are not at
issue here.  The reason that we have an IPR rule that asks us to
declare what the terms of a license are is so that the working groups'
members can evaluate both the applicability of the potentially
encumbering patents and the terms of the license.

The later those are made clear, the harder it is for the working
group.  It may have to abandon a lot of work at a late stage, which is
difficult if deadlines are looming or, worse, code has been shipped.
A license which was an outright grant would have no impact on that,
so the lack of timely disclosure has a smaller overall impact.  It's
still bad form, but not really more.   For a royalty-bearing license,
there is an obvious cost; for a defensive license, there is a less
obvious, but potentially real, cost.  If example.com sues Huawei for
any reason, they lose this license and can no longer use the
technology the WG agreed to standardize with purchasing a FRAND
license on the other (less-specified) terms.

I have no advice on this particular case, but the general point seems
to me important.

regards,

Ted

---

From: Steven Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:15:21 -0500

> encumbering patents and the terms of the license.

Yes, precisely.  This is spelled out quite explicitly in Sections 5.2 and 5.3
of RFC 3669, and Section 6.5 of 3979.

		--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:28:37 -0500

> I don't quite share the view that the license terms are not at

Yes, sorry: I was conflating this thread with the other one(s?) that are
specifically looking at how to address the late disclosures (for which the
issue really is how to deal with the failure to disclose, regardless of the
terms eventually offered).  This thread is about the Sieve documents in
question, so, yes, you're right that the terms are relevant.  I hadn't
meant to say we shouldn't think about that with respect to the two Sieve
documents.

Barry

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:16:26 -0800

Hi Barry,
>resolve this issue?  I think that cure is far worse than the disease.

It does not significantly affect document progress.

Thanks for the input.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:40 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> > The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that
> > presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number. I
> > don't know if that's true or not in this case.
> 
> idea to use the document's status in that way.  [...]

I think my suggestion was based on the premise of a past contentious working group whose outputs were reduced to Experimental by the IESG, and part of the contention was objectionable IPR claims.  I think in retrospect that was not quite right; the IPR claims were a problem with the personalities in the room, but they were not direct causes of the status changes.  So probably not a well-founded suggestion in the end.

-MSK

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:07:32 -0500

> the disclosures weren't made when they should have been.

Personally, that isn't the main problem.

Sure, if its their position its more of an defensive patent to combat 
the reality of dealing patent trolls, that is good news.

Unfortunately, Business Methods patents don't require the "unique 
part" in the integration of unrestricted parts and it covers the basic 
idea of just the integration. Thats a major conflict in an IETF 
environment which has untold thousands of parts.  So today, its 
SIP+SIEVE.  How about tomorrow with DKIM+SIP or in more general, 
RFC_X+RFC_Y?

My concern is that it should not be necessary to disclosed because the 
IETF parts are already public domain.  The idea of integration two of 
them, which is part for the course today MUST not open a can of worms 
where you are allowed to do this.

IOW, Barry, Are we opening that door that combing any two or more IETF 
technologies is ok to patent (not the method in combining) as long as 
they submit an IPR claim at the same thing of the I-D submission?

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:31:42 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:06 AM
> > I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something
until the license terms are made more IETF-friendly, unless the WG can find a
way to do equivalent work that is unencumbered, but then the WG might not have
the energy left.
> >
> > The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes
the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number.  I don't know if
that's true or not in this case.
> lists, even perhaps via a PR Action for being "disruptive" of the IETF

Pete

Whether or not this I-D is published as an RFC I see as an issue for the WG.  I
do not believe that I, nor many of those outside the WG, have the information on
which to make an informed decision.

On the individual in question, then yes, I believe that he should not be listed
as an author.

In the absence of any further explanatory communication from him, I would also
suspend his posting rights.

Tom Petch

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:01:25 +0100

> that this IPR existed. I have no information to contradict that claim.

Barry also said that company procedures have been improved to prevent
this particular type of failure in the future.

Speaking as Sieve WG member and sieve developer, I'm in favour of
treating this as a mishap (albeit a bad one), not an attempt at deception.

Arnt

---

From: "Polk, William T." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:11:12 -0500

Hi SM,

WG chairs are responsible for bringing their wg activities to successful
and timely completion.  My reading of the IETF policy documents indicates
they are *not* responsible for IPR compliance, and the draft Peter and I
wrote is not intended to change that.

However, IPR disclosure issues always have a negative impact on the
working group's progress.  IMHO, it is in the WG chairs interest to
encourage compliance with IPR rules so that it doesn't negatively impact
their wg activities.  I won't speak for other WG chairs, but I did not
have a strategy to promote IPR disclosure compliance when I was a chair,
and it bit me more than once.  The document suggests several strategies
that a proactive chair could employ to support that goal.

You are certainly correct that WG chairs interact with most IETF
participants more than ADs.  ADs are included in the text you quoted since
they handle publication of individual submissions on the IETF stream.  In
my version of a perfect world, the AD would not worry about IPR compliance
for WG documents since the WG chairs would have employed one or more of
these strategies to at least avoid accidental non-compliance.  However,
the AD might choose to run these strategies themselves to head off similar
problems with individual submissions.

Thanks,

Tim

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:41:36 -0500

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 14:01, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> WG Chairs interact with IETF participants more often than ADs.  It is not
> clear whether it is their responsibility to promote awareness and
> compliance.

Don't look for some kind of procedural responsibility.  WG Chairs
_want_ to ensure awareness and compliance as early as possible,
because if they don't do so they suffer: they suffer embarrassment and
sometimes failure of all their efforts when IPR is discovered late in
the process.  There's no need to assign responsibility to chairs or
IESG members, we already have plenty of feedback for them.

> compliance may help to catch issues before they become a concern.

Yup.  Ask early and often, directly and individually.  That clearly
makes the askees responsible, which will matter later.

Scott

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:14:43 -0800

On 1/25/2012 7:44 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> Well, at least U.S. patent application. And, for that matter, International
> Application PCT/CN2008/072066:
>

Google Translate does an impressive job on the Claims for the patent, but not 
good enough, I think.

If there is anyone out there with the skills and motivation, an unofficial 
translation of the claims could be helpful.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:01:15 +0000

On 27/01/2012 01:50, Barry Leiba wrote:
  [...]
> need to be disclosed until the RFC was published.

I just want to add that I was not aware of the fact that Qian Sun has 
filed patent applications, he didn't tell me.
(Not that it makes much difference, but in the interest of historical 
accuracy: In one case I started the draft by myself and Qian Sun offered 
to help with finishing it. In another case Qian Sun wrote a draft based 
on text from my other RFC and was bugging me to help out.)
> Kepeng and I were blindsided by this.

I obviously believe you :-). As much as I hate the whole situation, I am 
glad that this happened before the document got published as an RFC, not 
after.

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:35:16 -0800

> makes the askees responsible, which will matter later.

Assuming all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed Scott something
which functionally seems rarely to happen. How do you deal with the
issues of being liable under the 9th Circuit Model for "Willful
Infringement" - the IETF doesnt build ANYTHING that can exist without
its implemented process - and since in many instances these violate
patent protections in place how is it that the IETF gets to set the law
aside...

I am betting it doesnt. Nor do the sponsors of those hammered here under
that. For that reason I think we need both controls that allow
unpublishing of documents and recall of Licensing Rights in a matter
where we find something wrong or outside the process happened.

Unless it is of course the plan and practice of the IETF to destroy the
US Government's copyright protections... as well as its patent process.
So I ask, is that the intent here?

Todd