< draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt   draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-06.txt >
Network Working Group A. Farrel Network Working Group A. Farrel
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Category: Informational P. Resnick Category: Informational P. Resnick
Qualcomm Qualcomm
Expires: 25 October 2012 25 April 2012 Expires: 4 December 2012 4 June 2012
Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the
behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware. Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware.
The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously. The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously.
However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate
sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by
whom those sanctions are to be applied. whom those sanctions are to be applied.
This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
potential actions that may be taken within the IETF community. potential actions that can be taken within the IETF community in
cases related to patents.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the
behavior of all IETF participants with respect to intellectual behavior of all IETF participants with respect to intellectual
property about which they might reasonably be aware. These are property about which they might reasonably be aware. These are
documented in [BCP79] and are frequently brought to the attention of documented in [BCP79] and are frequently brought to the attention of
IETF participants. The policies state that each individual IETF participants. This document summarises and references those
policies, but does not replace or stand in for the full statement of
the policies found in [BCP79]. Readers and IETF participants need to
be aware of the content of [BCP79].
The policies set out in [BCP79] state that each individual
participant is responsible for disclosing or ensuring the disclosure participant is responsible for disclosing or ensuring the disclosure
of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) where: of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) where:
- they are aware of the IPR - they are aware of the IPR
- the IPR is relevant to the IETF work they are participating in - the IPR is relevant to the IETF work they are participating in
- the IPR is owned by a company that employs or sponsors the - the IPR is owned by the individual or by a company that employs or
individual's work. sponsors the individual's work.
Conformance to these IPR policies is very important, and there is a Conformance to these IPR policies is very important, and there is a
need to understand both what sanctions may be applied to participants need to understand both what sanctions can be applied to participants
who violate the policies, and who may apply those sanctions. who violate the policies, and who is in a position to apply the
sanctions.
This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of
potential actions that may be taken by the IETF community. All of potential actions that can be taken within the IETF community in
these sanctions are currently available in IETF processes, and two cases related to patents. All of these sanctions are currently
instances of violation of the IPR policy have been handled using some available in IETF processes, and at least two instances of violation
of the sanctions listed. As explicitly called out in Section 4, of the IPR policy have been handled using some of the sanctions
a posting rights (PR) action described in [RFC2418] as updated by listed. As explicitly called out in Section 4, a posting rights (PR)
[RFC3934], and in [RFC3683] is an applicable sanction for the case of action described in [RFC2418] as updated by [RFC3934], and in
a breach of the IETF's IPR policy. [RFC3683], is an applicable sanction for the case of a breach of the
IETF's IPR policy.
This document does not consider the parallel, but important issue of Note: This document specifies some administrative sanctions that
can be imposed by and through IETF administrative processes. In
particular, this document does not address or limit other legal
sanctions, rights, or remedies that are available outside of the IETF
or any of the legal rights or remedies that anyone has regarding IPR.
This document does not consider the parallel, but important, issue of
ways to actively promote conformance with the IETF's IPR policy. ways to actively promote conformance with the IETF's IPR policy.
That topic is discussed in [Promote]. That topic is discussed in [Promote].
2. Description of IETF IPR Policy 2. Description of IETF IPR Policy
The IETF's IPR policy is set out in [BCP79]. Nothing in this The IETF's IPR policy is set out in [BCP79]. Nothing in this
document defines or redefines the IETF's IPR policy. This section document defines or redefines the IETF's IPR policy. This section
simply highlights some important aspects of those policies. simply highlights some important aspects of those policies.
Additional information on the IETF's IPR policy may be found at Additional information on the IETF's IPR policy may be found at
[URLIPR] and [URLIESGIPR]. [URLIPR] and [URLIESGIPR].
2.1. Responsibilities of IETF Participants and Timeliness 2.1. Responsibilities of IETF Participants and Timeliness
According to [BCP79], individual IETF participants have a According to [BCP79], individual IETF participants have a
personal responsibility to disclose or ensure the timely disclosure personal responsibility to disclose or ensure the timely disclosure
of IPR of which they are aware and which they own or which is owned of IPR of which they are aware and which they own or which is owned
by a company that employs or sponsors them, and which impinges upon by a company that employs or sponsors them, and which impinges upon
the contribution that they make to the IETF. the contribution that they make to the IETF.
A "contribution" is also defined in [BCP79] and includes Internet- A "contribution" is also defined in [BCP79] and includes Internet-
Drafts, emails to IETF mailing lists, presentations at IETF meetings, Drafts, emails to IETF mailing lists, presentations at IETF meetings,
and comments made at the microphone during IETF meetings. and comments made at the microphone during IETF meetings.
The timeliness of disclosure is very important within [BCP79]. No The timeliness of disclosure is very important within [BCP79]. No
precise definition of "timeliness" is given in [BCP79] and it is not precise definition of "timeliness" is given in [BCP79] and it is not
the purpose of this document to do so. But it is important to the purpose of this document to do so. But it is important to
understand that the impact that an IPR disclosure has on the smooth understand that the impact that an IPR disclosure has on the smooth
working of the IETF is an inverse function of its timeliness. Thus, working of the IETF is directly related to how late in the process
a disclosure made on a published RFC is very likely to be more the disclosure is made. Thus, a disclosure made on a published RFC
disruptive to the IETF than such a disclosure on an early revision of is very likely to be more disruptive to the IETF than such a
an individual submission of an Internet-Draft. disclosure on an early revision of an individual submission of an
Internet-Draft.
Third-party disclosures may also be made by anyone who believes that Third-party disclosures can also be made giving the reasoning by
IPR may exist. anyone who has cause to believe that IPR exists.
It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a
choice under the IETF's IPR policy. If the individual is unwilling choice under the IETF's IPR policy. If the individual is unwilling
or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely
manner, that individual has the option to refrain from participating manner, that individual has the option to refrain from participating
in IETF discussions about the technology covered by the IPR in IETF discussions about the technology covered by the IPR.
2.2. How Attention is Drawn to These Responsibilities 2.2. How Attention is Drawn to These Responsibilities
The IETF draws the attention of all participants to the IPR policy The IETF draws the attention of all participants to the IPR policy
[BCP79] through the "Note Well" statement on the IETF web pages [BCP79] through the "Note Well" statement that appears on the IETF
[URLNoteWell], presentations at working group and plenary meetings, web pages [URLNoteWell], in presentations at working group and
and in printed materials handed out at IETF meetings, as well as in plenary meetings, as well as in the boilerplate text appearing in
the boilerplate text appearing in each Internet-Draft and RFC. each Internet-Draft and RFC. Additionally, the Note Well statement
is accepted by any person signing up to join an email list hosted at
ietf.org.
[Promote] suggests a number of additional ways in which the attention [Promote] suggests a number of additional ways in which the attention
of IETF participants can be drawn to the IPR policy. of IETF participants can be drawn to the IPR policy.
2.3. How IPR Disclosures are Made 2.3. How IPR Disclosures are Made
The procedure for filing IPR disclosures is shown on the IETF's web The procedure for filing IPR disclosures is shown on the IETF's web
site at [URLDisclose]. Third-party disclosures may also be made by site at [URLDisclose]. Third-party disclosures can also be made by
email to the IETF Secretariat or via the web page. email to the IETF Secretariat or via the web page.
Note that early disclosures or warnings that there might be IPR on a Note that early disclosures or warnings that there might be IPR on a
technology may also be made. technology can also be made.
2.4. How Working Groups Consider IPR Disclosures 2.4. How Working Groups Consider IPR Disclosures
In the normal course of events, a working group that is notified of In the normal course of events, a working group that is notified of
the existence of IPR must make a decision about whether to continue the existence of IPR must make a decision about whether to continue
with the work as it is, or whether to revise the work to attempt to with the work as it is, or whether to revise the work to attempt to
avoid the IPR claim. This decision is made on the working group's avoid the IPR claim. This decision is made on the working group's
mailing list using normal rough consensus procedures. However, mailing list using normal rough consensus procedures. However,
discussions of the applicability of an IPR claim or of the discussions of the applicability of an IPR claim or of the
appropriateness or merit of the IPR licensing terms are outside the appropriateness or merit of the IPR licensing terms are outside the
scope of the WG. The IPR situation is considered by working group scope of the WG. The IPR situation is considered by working group
participants as the document advances through the development process participants as the document advances through the development process
[RFC2026], in particular at key times such as adoption of the [RFC2026], in particular at key times such as adoption of the
document by the working group, and during last call. document by the working group, and during last call.
It needs to be clearly understood that the way that the working group It needs to be clearly understood that the way that the working group
handles an IPR disclosure is distinct from the sanctions that may be handles an IPR disclosure is distinct from the sanctions that can be
applied to the individuals who violated the IETF's IPR policy. That applied to the individuals who violated the IETF's IPR policy. That
is, the decision by a working group to, for example, entirely re-work is, the decision by a working group to, for example, entirely re-work
an Internet-Draft in order to avoid a piece of IPR that has been an Internet-Draft in order to avoid a piece of IPR that has been
disclosed should not be seen as a sanction against the authors. disclosed should not be seen as a sanction against the authors.
Indeed, and especially in the case of a late IPR disclosure, that a Indeed, and especially in the case of a late IPR disclosure, that a
working group decides to do this may be considered a harmful side working group decides to do this can be considered a harmful side
effect on the working group (in that it slows down the publication of effect on the working group (in that it slows down the publication of
an RFC and may derail other work the working group could be doing) an RFC and might derail other work the working group could be doing)
and should be considered as one of the reasons to apply sanctions to and should be considered as one of the reasons to apply sanctions to
the individuals concerned as described in the next two sections the individuals concerned as described in the next two sections.
2.5. The Desire for Sanctions 2.5. The Desire for Sanctions
Not conforming to the IETF's IPR policy undermines the work of the Not conforming to the IETF's IPR policy undermines the work of the
IETF, and sanctions should be applied against offenders. IETF, and sanctions ought to be applied against offenders.
2.6 Severity of Violations 2.6 Severity of Violations
Clearly there are different sorts of violations of IPR policy. Clearly there are different sorts of violations of IPR policy.
Sometimes, a working group participant simply does not realize that Sometimes, a working group participant simply does not realize that
the IPR that they invented applies to a particular working group the IPR that they invented applies to a particular working group
draft. Sanctions (if any) need not be at all severe. However, a draft. Sanctions (if any) need not be at all severe. However, a
working group document editor who waits until near the publication working group document editor who waits until near the publication
of a document to reveal IPR of which they themselves are the author of a document to reveal IPR of which they themselves are the author
should be subject to more serious sanctions. These are judgments should be subject to more serious sanctions. These are judgments
that can be made by the working group chairs and area director. that can be made by the working group chairs and area director.
This topic forms the bulk of the material in Sections 5 and 6. This topic forms the bulk of the material in Sections 5 and 6.
3. Who May Call For and Apply Sanctions 3. Who Initiates Sanctions
Any IETF participant can call for sanctions to be applied to anyone Any IETF participant can draw attention to an apparent violation
they believe has violated the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by of the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by sending email to
sending email to the appropriate IETF mailing list. Normally, the appropriate IETF mailing list including a short summary of
however, the working group chairs and area directors assume the the relevant facts and events. Normally the working group chairs and
responsibility for ensuring the smooth-running of the IETF and for area directors assume the responsibility for ensuring the smooth
the enforcement of IETF policies including the IPR policy. Thus, running of the IETF and for the enforcement of IETF policies
when sanctions are called for, working group chairs will be the first including the IPR policy. Thus, when sanctions are appropriate,
actors when there is an active working group involved in the working group chairs will be the first actors when there is an active
technical work, and area directors will be the first actors in other working group involved in the technical work, and area directors will
cases. be the first actors in other cases. The first step will usually be
the working group chairs or area director to gather the facts and
discuss the matter with the IETF participants involved.
Working group chairs are already empowered to take action against Working group chairs are already empowered to take action against
working group participants who flout the IPR rules and so disrupt working group participants who flout the IPR rules and so disrupt
the smooth running of the IETF or a specific working group, just as the smooth running of the IETF or a specific working group, just as
they can take such action in the face of other disruptions. they can take such action in the face of other disruptions.
The working group chairs have the responsibility to select the The working group chairs have the responsibility to select the
appropriate actions since they are closest to the details of the appropriate actions since they are closest to the details of the
issue. Where there is no working group involved or where making the issue. Where there is no working group involved or where making the
decision or applying the sanctions is uncomfortable or difficult for decision or applying the sanctions is uncomfortable or difficult for
the working group chairs, the responsible AD is available to guide or the working group chairs, the responsible AD is available to guide or
direct the action if necessary. direct the action if necessary.
4. Available Sanctions 4. Available Sanctions
This section lists some of the sanctions available to handle the This section lists some of the sanctions available to handle the
case of an individual who violates the IETF's IPR policies. It is case of an individual who violates the IETF's IPR policies. It is
not intended to be an exhaustive list, nor is it suggested that only not intended to be an exhaustive list, nor is it suggested that only
one sanction be applied in any case. Furthermore, it is not suggested one sanction be applied in any case. Furthermore, it is not suggested
here that every case of IPR policy infringement is the same or that here that every case of IPR policy infringement is the same or that
the severest sanctions should be applied in each case. the severest sanctions may be applied in each case.
In many cases, it may be appropriate to notify a wider IETF community
of the violation and sanctions so that patterns of behavior can be
spotted and handled.
The sanctions are listed in approximate order of severity, but the The sanctions are listed in approximate order of severity, but the
ordering should not be taken as definitive or as driving different ordering should not be taken as definitive or as driving different
decisions in different cases. Section 6 gives some guidance on decisions in different cases. Section 5 provides some notes on
selecting an appropriate sanction in any specific case, while Section fairness, while Section 6 gives some guidance on selecting an
5 provides some notes on fairness. appropriate sanction in any specific case.
a. A private discussion between the working group chair or area a. A private discussion between the working group chair or area
director and the individual to understand what went wrong and director and the individual to understand what went wrong and
how it can be prevented in the future. how it can be prevented in the future.
b. A formal, but private warning that the individuals must improve b. A formal, but private, warning that the individuals must improve
their behavior or risk one of the other sanctions. their behavior or risk one of the other sanctions.
c. A formal warning on an IETF mailing list that the individuals c. A formal warning on an IETF mailing list that the individuals
must improve their behavior or risk one of the other sanctions. must improve their behavior or risk one of the other sanctions.
d. Announcement to the working group of failure by the individuals d. Announcement to the working group of failure by the individuals
("name and shame"). ("name and shame").
e. On-going refusal to accept the individuals as editors of any new e. On-going refusal to accept the individuals as editors of any new
working group documents. The appointment of editors of working working group documents. The appointment of editors of working
group documents is entirely at the discretion of the working group documents is entirely at the discretion of the working
group chairs acting for the working group as explained in group chairs acting for the working group as explained in
[RFC2418]. [RFC2418].
f. Removal of the individuals as working group document editors on f. Removal of the individuals as working group document editors on
specific documents or across the whole working group. specific documents or across the whole working group.
g. Re-positioning of the individual's attribution in a document to g. Re-positioning of the individuals' attribution in a document to
the "Acknowledgements" section with or without a note explaining the "Acknowledgements" section with or without a note explaining
why they are listed there and not in the "Authors' Addresses" why they are listed there and not in the "Authors' Addresses"
section (viz. the IPR policy violation). This action can also be section (viz. the IPR policy violation). This action can also be
recorded by the area director in the datatracker entries for the recorded by the area director in the datatracker entries for the
documents concerned. documents concerned.
h. Deprecation or rejection of the individual document (whether it h. Deprecation or rejection of the individual document (whether it
be an RFC or Internet-Draft) or cessation of work on the affected be an RFC or Internet-Draft) or cessation of work on the affected
technology. technology.
i. Application of a temporary suspension of posting rights to a i. Application of a temporary suspension of indiviuals' posting
specific mailing list according to the guidelines expressed in rights to a specific mailing list according to the guidelines
[RFC2418] and updated by [RFC3934]. Such bans are applied to expressed in [RFC2418] and updated by [RFC3934]. Such bans are
specific to individual working group mailing lists at the applied to specific individuals and to individual working group
discretion of the working group chairs for a period of no more mailing lists at the discretion of the working group chairs for a
than 30 days. period of no more than 30 days.
j. The removal of posting privileges using a Posting Rights Action j. The removal of individuals' posting privileges using a Posting
(PR Action) as per [RFC3683]. This is a more drastic measure Rights Action (PR Action) as per [RFC3683]. This is a more
that can be applied when other sanctions are considered drastic measure that can be applied when other sanctions are
insufficient or to have been ineffective. When a PR action is in considered insufficient or to have been ineffective. When a PR
place, the subjects have their posting rights to a particular IETF action is in place, the subjects have their posting rights to a
mailing list removed for a period of a year (unless the action is particular IETF mailing list removed for a period of a year
revoked or extended), and maintainers of any IETF mailing list (unless the action is revoked or extended), and maintainers of any
may, at their discretion and without further recourse to IETF mailing list may, at their discretion and without further
explanation or discussion, also remove posting rights recourse to explanation or discussion, also remove posting rights.
PR actions are introduced by an area director and are considered PR actions are introduced by an area director and are considered
by the IETF community and the IESG in order to determine IETF by the IETF community and the IESG in order to determine IETF
consensus. consensus.
In many cases, it may be appropriate to notify a wider IETF community
of the violation and sanctions so that patterns of behavior can be
spotted and handled.
Note that individuals who have supplied text that is included in an Note that individuals who have supplied text that is included in an
IETF document (RFC or Internet-Draft) have a right to be recognized IETF document (RFC or Internet-Draft) have a right to be recognized
for their contribution. This means that authors names cannot be for their contribution. This means that authors names cannot be
entirely removed from a document in the event that they violate the entirely removed from a document in the event that they violate the
IETF's IPR policy unless the text they contributed is also completely IETF's IPR policy unless the text they contributed is also completely
removed. But the individual's name can be removed from the front removed. But the individual's name can be removed from the front
page and even moved from the "Authors' Addresses" section so long as page and even moved from the "Authors' Addresses" section so long as
proper acknowledgement of the contribution is given in the proper acknowledgement of the contribution is given in the
"Acknowledgements" section. "Acknowledgements" section.
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 8, line 49
security of the Internet, failing to follow the IETF's IPR policies security of the Internet, failing to follow the IETF's IPR policies
can be disruptive to the IETF's standards development processes and can be disruptive to the IETF's standards development processes and
so may be regarded as an attack on the correct operation of the IETF. so may be regarded as an attack on the correct operation of the IETF.
Furthermore, a late IPR disclosure (or a complete failure to Furthermore, a late IPR disclosure (or a complete failure to
disclose), could represent an attack on the use of deployed and disclose), could represent an attack on the use of deployed and
operational equipment in the Internet. operational equipment in the Internet.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action. This document makes no requests for IANA action.
[RFC Editor : You may remove this section before publication.]
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Lou Berger, Ross Callon, Stewart Bryant, Jari Arkko, and Thanks to Lou Berger, Ross Callon, Stewart Bryant, Jari Arkko, and
Peter Saint-Andre for comments on an early version of this document. Peter Saint-Andre for comments on an early version of this document.
Thanks to Subramanian Moonesamy and Tom Petch for their comments on Thanks to Subramanian Moonesamy and Tom Petch for their comments on
the work. Thanks to Dan Wing, Tony Li, and Steve Bellovin for the work. Thanks to Dan Wing, Tony Li, and Steve Bellovin for
discussions. Thanks to Stephen Farrell for providing a thorough discussions. Thanks to Stephen Farrell for providing a thorough
review as document shepherd. review as document shepherd.
Additional thanks for textual improvements around IETF last call go
to Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Jorge Contreras, Russ Housley,
Barry Liebe, and Murray S. Kucherawy.
10. Authors' Addresses 10. Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
adrian@olddog.co.uk adrian@olddog.co.uk
Pete Resnick Pete Resnick
Qualcomm Qualcomm
presnick@qualcomm.com presnick@qualcomm.com
skipping to change at page 10, line 25 skipping to change at page 11, line 25
- How long has the participant been active in the IETF? - How long has the participant been active in the IETF?
- Was there some exceptional circumstance? - Was there some exceptional circumstance?
- Are there special circumstances that imply that the individual - Are there special circumstances that imply that the individual
would not have seen or understood the pointers to and content of would not have seen or understood the pointers to and content of
[BCP79]? [BCP79]?
- How late was the disclosure? Is the document already a working - How late was the disclosure? Is the document already a working
group document? How many revisions have been published? How much group document? How many revisions have been published? How much
time has elapsed? Have last calls be held? Has the work been time has elapsed? Have last calls been held? Has the work been
published as an RFC? published as an RFC?
- Was the individual a minor contributor to the IETF work, or are - Was the individual a minor contributor to the IETF work, or are
they clearly a major contributor? they clearly a major contributor?
- Is there a reason for the individual forgetting the existence of - Is there a reason for the individual forgetting the existence of
the IPR (for example, it was filed many years previous to the work the IPR (for example, it was filed many years previous to the work
in the IETF)? in the IETF)?
- Was the individual told by their company that disclosure was - Was the individual told by their company that disclosure was
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
72 lines changed or deleted 95 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/