< draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-04.txt   draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt >
IPR Working Group S. Brim IPR Working Group S. Brim
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: November 26, 2003 May 28, 2003 Expires: December 10, 2003 June 11, 2003
Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues
draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-04 draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 1, line 30 skipping to change at page 1, line 30
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2003. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2003.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb useful This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb useful
for working groups dealing with IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) for working groups dealing with IPR (Intellectual Property Rights)
issues. It documents specific examples of how IPR issues have been issues. It documents specific examples of how IPR issues have been
skipping to change at page 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1 PPP CCP and ECP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1 PPP CCP and ECP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2 IPS WG (IP Storage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2 IPS WG (IP Storage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3 PEM and PKI issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3 PEM and PKI issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4 CDI WG (Content Distribution Internetworking) . . . . . . . 7 4.4 VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5 VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5 Secure Shell (SecSH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6 Secure Shell (SecSH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.6 IDN (Internationalized Domain Name) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.7 IDN (Internationalized Domain Name) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1 Types of IPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1 Types of IPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2 When to Think About IPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2 When to Think About IPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3 IPR as a Technology Evaluation Factor . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3 IPR as a Technology Evaluation Factor . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4 Patents versus Pending Patents Applied For . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4 Patents versus Pending Patents Applied For . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5 Applicability: It's Hard to Prove a Negative . . . . . . . . 12 5.5 Applicability: It's Hard to Prove a Negative . . . . . . . . 11
5.6 Licensing Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.6 Licensing Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.7 Third-Party Disclosure of IPR Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.7 Third-Party Disclosure of IPR Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.7.1 Third-Party Disclosure Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.7.1 Third-Party Disclosure Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb to This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb to
assist working groups dealing with IPR issues. The goal is to assist working groups dealing with IPR issues. The goal is to
achieve a balance between the needs of IPR claimants and the achieve a balance between the needs of IPR claimants and the
implementers of IETF standards which is appropriate to current times. implementers of IETF standards which is appropriate to current times.
As part of trying to distill out principles for dealing with IPR in As part of trying to distill out principles for dealing with IPR in
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 7
requirement that technology must be licensed royalty-free. This is requirement that technology must be licensed royalty-free. This is
currently not possible in the IETF. currently not possible in the IETF.
Even if the IETF had membership agreements, they would be difficult Even if the IETF had membership agreements, they would be difficult
to formulate in a way that covered IPR issues, because the IETF's to formulate in a way that covered IPR issues, because the IETF's
work includes technology from other sources and because the IETF work includes technology from other sources and because the IETF
collaborates with organizations that work with different approaches collaborates with organizations that work with different approaches
to intellectual property. The IETF can encounter four different IPR to intellectual property. The IETF can encounter four different IPR
situations, at almost any time during the life of a document: situations, at almost any time during the life of a document:
o A document submitter notes their IPR claim regarding the contents o A document submitter notes their (or their represented
of the document. organization's) IPR claim regarding the contents of the document.
o A non-submitter IETF participant claims that the contents of a o A non-submitter IETF participant claims that the contents of a
document are covered by their (or their represented document are covered by their (or their represented
organization's) own IPR. organization's) own IPR.
o An IETF participant notes IPR that is claimed by an individual or o An IETF participant notes IPR that is claimed by an individual or
organization with which neither an author of the document, nor the organization with which neither an author of the document, nor the
participant noting the IPR, have an affiliation. participant noting the IPR, have an affiliation.
o An individual or organization that does not participate in the o An individual or organization that does not participate in the
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
working groups need a great deal of freedom in dealing with IPR working groups need a great deal of freedom in dealing with IPR
issues. However, some amount of consistency is important so that issues. However, some amount of consistency is important so that
both contributors and users of eventual standards can know what to both contributors and users of eventual standards can know what to
expect. expect.
3. The Approach 3. The Approach
The goal of this memo is not to make rules. The goal is to give The goal of this memo is not to make rules. The goal is to give
working groups as much information as possible to make informed working groups as much information as possible to make informed
decisions, and then step out of the way. The other IPR working group decisions, and then step out of the way. The other IPR working group
memos [5][6] lay out what needs to be done once a particular piece memos [5][6] lay out what needs to be done once a particular piece of
of technology is selected as a working group draft. However, this technology is selected as a working group draft. However, this
doesn't help when a working group is trying to decide whether or not doesn't help when a working group is trying to decide whether or not
to select a technology in the first place. This third memo is written to select a technology in the first place. This third memo is written
to help in making that decision. We want to build a conceptual to help in making that decision. We want to build a conceptual
framework, a new set of "common knowledge", to make it easier for framework, a new set of "common knowledge", to make it easier for
working groups to deal with intellectual property issues. working groups to deal with intellectual property issues.
To do so, we first present a number of "case studies" in Section 4 -- To do so, we first present "case studies" in Section 4 -- real events
real events that have happened in recent years, and how different that have happened in recent years, and how different working groups
working groups dealt with them -- plus notes on possible lessons to dealt with them -- plus notes on possible lessons to be learned. In
be learned. In Section 5, we expand on these lessons and try to Section 5, we expand on these lessons and try to extract general
extract general principles. principles.
4. Case Studies 4. Case Studies
The best way to know what works in dealing with IPR is to look at The best way to know what works in dealing with IPR is to look at
past attempts to do so. The following are selected as cases from past attempts to do so. The following are selected as cases from
which general lessons might be extracted. Other lessons might be which general lessons might be extracted. Other lessons might be
extracted from other cases, but the cases below cover the important extracted from other cases, but the cases below cover the important
ones. ones.
4.1 PPP CCP and ECP 4.1 PPP CCP and ECP
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
Lessons: Lessons:
o IPR is just one issue in deciding whether to adopt a technology. o IPR is just one issue in deciding whether to adopt a technology.
o IPR is not an all-or-nothing issue. There are different types and o IPR is not an all-or-nothing issue. There are different types and
levels of IPR protection. levels of IPR protection.
o The IPR's lifecycle phase can be a consideration. o The IPR's lifecycle phase can be a consideration.
4.4 CDI WG (Content Distribution Internetworking) 4.4 VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol)
The CDI (Content Distribution Internetworking) Working Group laid out
an overall architecture and found that a number of related
technologies had IPR claims associated with them, based on work done
before the working group was started. The working group participants
decided there was little chance of producing alternative technologies
which were as useful and which did not run up against these IPR
claims. As usual, there was no good way to evaluate claims and
possible licensing terms until after the technology had been
completely specified (at the earliest).
However, working group participants generally thought they had a good
idea what to expect from each other with regard to licensing, and in
fact expected few if any problems. The expected risks were low
enough that they thought the ultimate benefits of using the patented
technologies outweighed the expected burden of the IPR issues. The
working group participants decided they did not need to consider IPR
as an issue in determining which technologies to adopt.
Lessons:
o Past experience with patent claimants can be used as a significant
factor in evaluating the possible impact of IPR. It can lead to
enough mutual trust that concerns about licensing terms do not
slow the working group down.
4.5 VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol)
The working group was standardizing VRRP based on a protocol The working group was standardizing VRRP based on a protocol
developed outside the IETF. The IPR claimant supported that protocol developed outside the IETF. The IPR claimant supported that protocol
and stated that it would license its IPR for that protocol if it and stated that it would license its IPR for that protocol if it
became the standard, but not for the similar protocol the working became the standard, but not for the similar protocol the working
group was developing. The working group participants decided to go group was developing. The working group participants decided to go
ahead and standardize the protocol developed in the working group ahead and standardize the protocol developed in the working group
anyway. The IPR claimant has only claimed its patent when someone anyway. The IPR claimant has only claimed its patent when someone
else claimed a patent against it. There is no evidence that the else claimed a patent against it. There is no evidence that the
working group participants actually thought about the implications of working group participants actually thought about the implications of
the IPR claim when it went ahead with its choice of protocol. the IPR claim when they went ahead with their choice of protocol.
Lessons: Lessons:
o IPR claims should never be disregarded without good cause. Due o IPR claims should never be disregarded without good cause. Due
diligence should be done to understand the consequences of each diligence should be done to understand the consequences of each
claim. claim.
4.6 Secure Shell (SecSH) 4.5 Secure Shell (SecSH)
This is primarily an unfinished trademark issue, not a patent issue, This is primarily an unfinished trademark issue, not a patent issue,
since the patent issue has been worked out outside of the IETF. The since the patent issue has been worked out outside of the IETF. The
holder of a trademark wants the IETF to stop using "SSH" in the names holder of a trademark wants the IETF to stop using "SSH" in the names
and bodies of its proposed standards. The working group participants and bodies of its proposed standards. The working group participants
have thought through the details of the claims, and possible have thought through the details of the claims, and possible
implications and risks, and decided to go ahead and continue using implications and risks, and decided to go ahead and continue using
the names as they are now. the names as they are now.
Lessons: Lessons:
o Working group participants can evaluate IPR claims not only for o Working group participants can evaluate IPR claims not only for
their possible validity, but also for the risk of misjudging that their possible validity, but also for the risk of misjudging that
validity. The impact of honoring the IPR claim may be major or validity. The impact of honoring the IPR claim may be major or
minor. minor.
4.7 IDN (Internationalized Domain Name) 4.6 IDN (Internationalized Domain Name)
The IDN working group dealt with a number of IPR claims. Several were The IDN Working Group dealt with a number of IPR claims. Several were
made which did not overlap with the technology -- the IPR claimants made which did not overlap with the technology -- the IPR claimants
said the patents were being announced just in case the working group said the patents were being announced just in case the working group
decided to go that way. In one case, even though a patent was decided to go that way. In one case, even though a patent was
announced as purely defensive, many working group participants announced as purely defensive, many working group participants
investigated the claims themselves. They concluded that it did not investigated the claims themselves. They concluded that it did not
overlap. overlap.
In one case, an IPR claimant asserted that the working group's In one case, an IPR claimant asserted that the working group's
documents, and in fact the IETF as a whole, were infringing on its documents, and in fact the IETF as a whole, were infringing on its
rights. Individual working group participants consulted with their rights. Individual working group participants consulted with their
skipping to change at page 8, line 47 skipping to change at page 8, line 21
working group's developing technology, and decided that they need not working group's developing technology, and decided that they need not
be concerned about the claims. This was reflected in the direction be concerned about the claims. This was reflected in the direction
the group as a whole decided to take. the group as a whole decided to take.
In another case, patent claims were asserted that appeared to be In another case, patent claims were asserted that appeared to be
derived from working group discussion, rather than vice versa (or derived from working group discussion, rather than vice versa (or
independent discovery). The claimants were known to be following the independent discovery). The claimants were known to be following the
working group's work when the ideas were proposed, and their patent working group's work when the ideas were proposed, and their patent
filing was considerably subsequent to that time. filing was considerably subsequent to that time.
In 2000 the IDN working group discovered a patent that some In 2000 the IDN Working Group discovered a patent that some
participants thought might apply to one of their main drafts. If it participants thought might apply to one of their main drafts. If it
did, it could affect their work profoundly -- to the extent that some did, it could affect their work profoundly -- to the extent that some
suggested that if they could not work out reasonable licensing terms suggested that if they could not work out reasonable licensing terms
with the IPR claimant they might just disband. As a group and with the IPR claimant they might just disband. As a group and
individually, participants corresponded with the IPR claimant in individually, participants corresponded with the IPR claimant in
order to get an explicit statement of licensing terms, preferably order to get an explicit statement of licensing terms, preferably
royalty-free. By doing so they gained a better understanding of just royalty-free. By doing so they gained a better understanding of just
which working group activities were seen as infringing on the patent, which working group activities were seen as infringing on the patent,
and at least some understanding of the IPR claimant's intentions and and at least some understanding of the IPR claimant's intentions and
philosophy. Since the patent holder seemed to have an interest in philosophy. Since the patent holder seemed to have an interest in
skipping to change at page 11, line 12 skipping to change at page 10, line 33
evaluated. A working group's knowledge of IPR claims may therefore evaluated. A working group's knowledge of IPR claims may therefore
depend upon when a claimant steps forward during the course of a depend upon when a claimant steps forward during the course of a
working group's deliberations. working group's deliberations.
5.3 IPR as a Technology Evaluation Factor 5.3 IPR as a Technology Evaluation Factor
How do you weigh IPR claims against other issues when deciding How do you weigh IPR claims against other issues when deciding
whether to adopt a technology? whether to adopt a technology?
The ultimate goal of the IETF is to promote the overall health, The ultimate goal of the IETF is to promote the overall health,
robustness, flexibility and utility of the Internet infrastructure. robustness, flexibility, and utility of the Internet infrastructure.
We base architectural decisions on our long-term extrapolations of We base architectural decisions on our long-term extrapolations of
requirements by thinking in these terms. When considering a requirements by thinking in these terms. When considering a
particular technology, we compare it with other technologies not just particular technology, we compare it with other technologies not just
for its elegance of design in and of itself, but also for how it fits for its elegance of design in and of itself, but also for how it fits
in the bigger picture. This is done at multiple levels. It is in the bigger picture. This is done at multiple levels. It is
examined for how it fits into the overall design of the working examined for how it fits into the overall design of the working
group's output, how it fits into the particular Internet group's output, how it fits into the particular Internet
infrastructure area, how it fits with work going on in other areas, infrastructure area, how it fits with work going on in other areas,
and how it fits in the long view of the Internet architecture. and how it fits in the long view of the Internet architecture.
skipping to change at page 11, line 45 skipping to change at page 11, line 17
The problem with IPR as a technology evaluation factor is that it is The problem with IPR as a technology evaluation factor is that it is
unlikely that a working group, as an entity, can ever claim to have unlikely that a working group, as an entity, can ever claim to have
reached consensus on most IPR issues. The IETF as a whole, and a reached consensus on most IPR issues. The IETF as a whole, and a
working group as a whole, takes no stance on the validity of any IPR working group as a whole, takes no stance on the validity of any IPR
claim. It would be inappropriate for a working group chair to claim. It would be inappropriate for a working group chair to
declare that consensus had been reached that, for example, a declare that consensus had been reached that, for example, a
company's patent was invalid. Individual participants will need to company's patent was invalid. Individual participants will need to
use whatever legal advice resources they have access to in order to use whatever legal advice resources they have access to in order to
form their own individual opinions. Discussions about the validity form their own individual opinions. Discussions about the validity
of IPR can take place under the auspices of the working group, in of IPR may take place under the auspices of the working group, in
particular about relative risks of technology choices. Individual particular about relative risks of technology choices. Individual
participants can take these discussions into account. The working participants may take these discussions into account. The working
group as a body may not take a stance on validity, but it may make group as a body may not take a stance on validity, but it may make
choices based on perceived risk. choices based on perceived risk.
5.4 Patents versus Pending Patents Applied For 5.4 Patents versus Pending Patents Applied For
The IETF does not (cannot) expect IPR claimants to tell a working The IETF does not (cannot) expect IPR claimants to tell a working
group specifically how they think a particular patent applies. If a group specifically how they think a particular patent applies. If a
patent has already been granted, the IETF can reasonably expect patent has already been granted, the IETF can reasonably expect
disclosure of the patent number and possibly the relevant IETF disclosure of the patent number and possibly the relevant IETF
document sections, which will allow working group participants to document sections, which will allow working group participants to
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at page 12, line 29
claims is rare. claims is rare.
However, the level of confidence needed to consider IPR when However, the level of confidence needed to consider IPR when
evaluating a technology is often not hard to get to. There are cases evaluating a technology is often not hard to get to. There are cases
where risk is high (e.g. where licensing terms may be onerous) and where risk is high (e.g. where licensing terms may be onerous) and
thus a high level of confidence about applicability is needed, but thus a high level of confidence about applicability is needed, but
history shows that most of the time "rough" confidence is good history shows that most of the time "rough" confidence is good
enough. enough.
In all cases, licensing terms are a more significant consideration In all cases, licensing terms are a more significant consideration
than the validity of the IPR claims. licensing terms often do not than the validity of the IPR claims. Licensing terms often do not
limit the usefulness of the technology. It is difficult to be sure limit the usefulness of the technology. It is difficult to be sure
about the validity of IPR claims. If the licensing terms can be about the validity of IPR claims. If the licensing terms can be
determined to be reasonable, then the IPR claims become much less determined to be reasonable, then the IPR claims become much less
important. important.
5.6 Licensing Terms 5.6 Licensing Terms
Licensing terms vary across a range from no license required at all Licensing terms vary across a range from no license required at all
to prohibitive. In general, working groups show a preference for to prohibitive. In general, working groups show a preference for
technologies with IPR considerations in approximately the following technologies with IPR considerations in approximately the following
order. This list does not constitute a rule, and every working group order. This list does not constitute a rule, and every working group
needs to take its own circumstances into account. needs to take its own circumstances into account.
o License not required. o License not required.
o Licensed with no restrictions. o IPR licensed with no restrictions.
o IPR licensed with no material restrictions, e.g. no trademark o IPR licensed with no material restrictions, e.g. no trademark
license required. license required.
o IPR licensed for a particular field of use but with no other o IPR licensed for a particular field of use but with no other
material restrictions, e.g. licensed solely for implementations material restrictions, e.g. licensed solely for implementations
complying with a standard. complying with a standard.
o IPR licensed under royalty-free terms and reasonable and o IPR licensed under royalty-free terms and reasonable and
non-discriminatory restrictions. non-discriminatory restrictions.
skipping to change at page 15, line 7 skipping to change at page 14, line 26
licensed technology to become a draft standard, at least two licensed technology to become a draft standard, at least two
independent licenses need to have been issued. If the IPR claimant independent licenses need to have been issued. If the IPR claimant
for the technology the working group is considering has licensed for the technology the working group is considering has licensed
other technology in the past, there is a record of the sorts of terms other technology in the past, there is a record of the sorts of terms
they are willing to grant, at least in those specific cases. This they are willing to grant, at least in those specific cases. This
sort of thing is weak but everything counts, and it may be of some sort of thing is weak but everything counts, and it may be of some
help. help.
In many jurisdictions that issue patents, inventors are required to In many jurisdictions that issue patents, inventors are required to
file patent applications within 12 months of public disclosure or use file patent applications within 12 months of public disclosure or use
of a novel method or process. Since many of these jurisdictions also of a novel method or process. Since many of these jurisdictions also
provide for publication of pending patent applications 18 months provide for publication of pending patent applications 18 months
after a patent application is filed, the ability to determine whether after a patent application is filed, the ability to determine whether
or not claims have been made at all relating to a particular or not claims have been made at all relating to a particular
technology increases 30 months (12 + 18) after the public disclosure technology increases 30 months (12 + 18) after the public disclosure
or use of that technology. or use of that technology.
5.7 Third-Party Disclosure of IPR Claims 5.7 Third-Party Disclosure of IPR Claims
It is good to notify the IETF of relevant IPR claims even when they It is good to notify the IETF of relevant IPR claims even when they
are not one's own, and [6] says to do so "as soon as possible". are not one's own, and [6] says to do so "as soon as possible".
However, anyone considering such a disclosure should do some However, anyone considering such a disclosure should do some
preliminary exploration with the affected working group(s) beforehand preliminary exploration with the affected working group(s) beforehand
(see Section 5.7.1). Third-party disclosure is a potential denial of (see Section 5.7.1). Third-party disclosure is a potential denial of
service threat to the working group, and therefore it is good form to service threat to the working group, and therefore it is good form to
proceed slowly at first. proceed slowly at first.
Working group participants should be aware that third-party Working group participants should be aware that third-party
disclosure can be used, knowingly or unknowingly, to defocus and disclosure can be used, knowingly or unknowingly, to defocus and
distract the working group and hinder its progress. They should distract the working group and hinder its progress. They should
evaluate third party disclosures accordingly. Working group chairs evaluate third-party disclosures accordingly. Working group chairs
should be willing and able to discipline those they think are using should be willing and able to discipline those they think are using
the third-party disclosure system inappropriately. Those who think the third-party disclosure system inappropriately. Those who think
they are being unfairly blocked may take the matter up with the Area they are being unfairly blocked may take the matter up with the Area
Directors and/or the IESG. Directors and/or the IESG.
All of the criteria for evaluating IPR claims discussed in the All of the criteria for evaluating IPR claims discussed in the
sections above apply in the case of third-party disclosures as well, sections above apply in the case of third-party disclosures as well,
to the extent they can be practiced. to the extent they can be practiced.
5.7.1 Third-Party Disclosure Advice 5.7.1 Third-Party Disclosure Advice
This subsection provides advice to those considering making This subsection provides advice to those considering making
skipping to change at page 17, line 12 skipping to change at page 16, line 32
[2] Postel, J., "Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure", BCP 2, [2] Postel, J., "Addendum to RFC 1602 -- Variance Procedure", BCP 2,
RFC 1871, November 1995. RFC 1871, November 1995.
[3] Kastenholz, F., "Variance for The PPP Connection Control [3] Kastenholz, F., "Variance for The PPP Connection Control
Protocol and The PPP Encryption Control Protocol", BCP 3, RFC Protocol and The PPP Encryption Control Protocol", BCP 3, RFC
1915, February 1996. 1915, February 1996.
[4] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP [4] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[5] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Submissions", [5] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions",
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-04 (work in progress), April draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-05 (work in progress), June
2003. 2003.
[6] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", [6] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology",
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06 (work in progress), May draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-08 (work in progress), June
2003. 2003.
Informative References Informative References
[7] Wu, T., "The SRP Authentication and Key Exchange System", RFC [7] Wu, T., "The SRP Authentication and Key Exchange System", RFC
2945, September 2000. 2945, September 2000.
Author's Address Author's Address
Scott Brim Scott Brim
skipping to change at page 19, line 7 skipping to change at page 19, line 7
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
70 lines changed or deleted 42 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/