Network Working Group Scott Bradner Internet-Draft Harvard University Intended status: BCP Obsoletes: 3979, 4879 Jorge Contreras Updates: 2026 American University Expires: August 1, 2013 January 31, 2013 Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-03.txt Abstract The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as possible. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo updates RFC 2026 and obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Bradner & Contreras [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents [tbd] 1. Definitions The following definitions are for terms used in the context of this document. Other terms, including "IESG," "ISOC," "IAB," and "RFC Editor," are defined in [RFC2028]. a. "Alternate Stream": the IAB Document Stream, the IRTF Document Stream and the Independent Submission Stream, each as defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC4844]. b. "Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity, in each case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process or that is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has adopted this definition. Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and electronic communications, which are addressed to: o the IETF plenary session, o any IETF working group or portion thereof, o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof, o any IETF-sanctioned design team or portion thereof, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, o any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room or discussion board, operated by or under the auspices of the IETF, including the IETF list itself, o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not Contributions in the context Bradner & Contreras [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 of this document. For example, the presentations made by invited speakers at IETF plenary sessions to discuss advances in Internet technology generally, or to describe their existing products or technologies, are not Contributions. Throughout this memo, the term "written Contribution" is used. For purposes of this memo, "written" means reduced to a written or visual form in any language and any media, permanent or temporary, including but not limited to traditional documents, e-mail messages, discussion board postings, slide presentations, text messages, instant messages, and transcriptions of oral statements. c. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution d. "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a patent application (including a provisional patent application to the extent that it contains claims) in any jurisdiction , or any other Intellectual Property Right, would necessarily be infringed by the exercise of a right (e.g., making, using, selling, importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with respect to an Implementing Technology. For purposes of this definition, "valid claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or patent application which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled or disclaimed, nor held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction in an unappealed or unappealable decision. e. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing lists, functions and other activities which are organized or initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but solely to the extent of such participation. f. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as part of the IETF Standards Process. These are also referred to as "IETF Stream Documents" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844. g. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in any of the settings described in the above definition of Contribution. The IETF Standards Process may include participation in activities and publication of documents that are not directed toward the development of IETF standards or specifications, such as the development and publication of informational documents. h. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means a patent, utility model, or similar right that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof, Bradner & Contreras [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world. See [RFC5378] for a discussion of Trademarks. i. "Implementing Technology": means a technology that implements an IETF specification or standard. j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026]. k. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means making a Contribution, as described above, attending a relevant working group meeting, subscribing to an IETF mailing list, or otherwise observing the progress of IETF discussions and deliberations over a particular Internet-Draft, whether or not actively submitting Contributions or engaging in the discussion. l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds, would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the disclosure requirement. But this requirement should not be interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent search to find applicable IPR. m. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF. RFCs are published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified. (See [RFC2026] Section 2.1) 2. Introduction The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as possible. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo updates RFC 2026 [RFC2026] and obsoletes RFC 3979 [RFC3979] and RFC 4879 [RFC4879]. Section 1 defines the terms used in this document. Sections 3 through 11 set forth the IETF's policies and procedures relating to IPR. Section 13 lists the changes between this document and RFCs 3979 and 4879. A separate document [RFC5378] deals with rights (such Bradner & Contreras [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 as copyrights and Trademarks) in Contributions, including the right of IETF and its participants to publish and create derivative works of those Contributions. This document is not intended to address those issues. See RFC 6702 [RFC6702] for a discussion of "Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules". / This document is not intended as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF in any Contributions they make. 3. Contributions to the IETF 3.1. General Policy In all matters relating to Intellectual Property Rights, the intent is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. 3.2. Rights and Permissions By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions, on his or her own behalf, and on behalf of the organizations the Contributor represents or is sponsored by (if any) when submitting the Contribution. A. The Contributor represents that he or she has made or will promptly make all disclosures required by Section 5.1.1 of this document. B. The Contributor represents that there are no limits to the Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the Contributor. 4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received A. The IESG, IAB, ISOC and IETF Trust disclaim any responsibility for identifying the existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any IPR, disclosed or otherwise, to any IETF technology, specification or standard, and will take no position on the validity or scope of any such IPR. B. When the IETF Secretariat has received a notification under Section 5.1.3 of the existence of non-participant IPR that potentially Covers a technology under discussion at IETF or which is the subject of an IETF Document, the IETF Secretariat will request that the identified third party make an IPR disclosure in Bradner & Contreras [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 accordance with the provisions of Section 5. If such third party declines to make such a disclosure within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the IESG, then the IESG may submit an IPR disclosure identifying such third party IPR, with an indication that such IPR disclosure is being made based on the identification of such IPR by an IETF participant other than the IPR holder. C. When an IPR disclosure has been made as provided in Section 5 of this document, the IETF Secretariat shall request from the purported holder of such IPR, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for publication of the relevant IETF specification(s) as one or more RFCs, all persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing Technology under one of the licensing options specified in Section 5.5.A below unless such a statement has already been submitted. The working group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the Intellectual Property Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF Secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF Document along the standards track. A working group may take into consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating the technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may facilitate obtaining such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Secretariat, and be made available online. D. Determination of Provision of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms The IESG will not make any determination that any terms for the use of an Implementing Technology has been fulfilled in practice. 5. IPR Disclosures This document refers to the IETF participant making disclosures, consistent with the general IETF philosophy that participants in the IETF act as individuals. 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. 5.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure? 5.1.1. A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution Bradner & Contreras [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 A. Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 5.6 which the Contributor believes Covers or may ultimately Cover his or her written Contribution (other than a Contribution that is not intended to be used as an input into the IETF Standards Process), or which the Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such written Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 5. B. An IPR discloser must withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, and must amend a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters the matters disclosed in a previous disclosure. 5.1.2. An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others Any individual participating in an IETF discussion or activity who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 5.6 which the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Cover a written Contribution made by another person, or which such IETF participant reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such written Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 5. 5.1.3. IPR of Others If any person has information about IPR that may Cover a written Contribution, but such person is not required to disclose such IPR because it does not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR is not owned or controlled by the person or his or her employer or sponsor, or such person is not an IETF participant), such person is encouraged to file a third party disclosure as described in Section 5.3 below. Such a notice should be filed as soon as reasonably possible after the IETF participant realizes the connection. 5.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to have as much information as they can while they are evaluating alternative solutions. 5.2.1. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.1 A. The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 5.1.1 must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is submitted Bradner & Contreras [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 or made unless the required disclosure is already on file. For example, if the Contribution is an update to a Contribution for which an IPR disclosure has already been made and the applicability of the disclosure is not changed by the new Contribution, then no new disclosure is required. But if the Contribution is a new one, or is one that changes an existing Contribution such that the revised Contribution is no longer Covered by the disclosed IPR or would be Covered by new or different IPR, then a disclosure must be made. B. If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that meets the conditions of Section 5.6, for example a new patent application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent portfolio, after the Contribution is published in an Internet- Draft, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the Contributor. C. Participants who realize that the making of a Contribution that will be Covered by IPR meeting the conditions of Section 5.6 is likely are strongly encouraged to make a preliminary IPR disclosure. That IPR disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as reasonably possible, not waiting until the Contribution is actually posted or ready for posting. 5.2.2. Timing of Disclosure Under Section5.1.2 The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 5.1.2 must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is made, unless the required disclosure is already on file. Participants who realize that IPR meeting the conditions of Section 5.6 will be or has been incorporated into a Contribution, or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly encouraged to make a preliminary IPR disclosure. That IPR disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as reasonably possible, not waiting until the Contribution is actually made. If an IETF participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions of Section 5.6 in a Contribution by another party, for example a new patent application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent portfolio, after the Contribution was made, an IPR disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution or IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the participant. 5.3. How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made? IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at Bradner & Contreras [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions. 5.4. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure? Updating IPR Disclosures. 5.4.1. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure? An IPR disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on unpublished patent applications. The IPR disclosure must also list the name(s) of the inventors and the specific IETF Document(s) or activity affected. If the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific version number. In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, the discloser must identify the sections of the IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered. 5.4.2. Updating IPR Disclosures. A. An IPR disclosure must be updated or a new disclosure made promptly after any of the following has occurred: the publication of a previously unpublished patent application, the abandonment of a patent application and/or the issuance of a patent thereon, a material change to the IETF Document covered by the Disclosure that causes the Disclosure to be covered by additional IPR. If a patent has issued, then the new IPR disclosure must include the patent number and, if the claims of the granted patent differ from those of the application in manner material to the relevant Contribution, the IPR disclosure must describe any differences in applicability to the Contribution. If the patent application was abandoned, then the new IPR disclosure must explicitly withdraw any earlier IPR disclosures based on the application. IPR disclosures against a particular Contribution are assumed to be inherited by revisions of the Contribution and by any RFCs that are published from the Contribution unless the disclosure has been updated or withdrawn. B. If an IPR holder files foreign counterpart patent applications, the claims of which are substantially identical to the claims of a patent or patent application previously disclosed in an IPR disclosure, the IPR holder is not required to make a new or updated IPR disclosure as a result of filing such foreign counterpart applications or the issuance of foreign patents on such applications. C. An IETF participant must make a new IPR disclosure if a Bradner & Contreras [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 Contribution becomes Covered by IPR that was not previously disclosed against the relevant Contribution, and such IETF participant reasonably and personally knows of such IPR. D. New or revised IPR disclosures may be made voluntarily at any other time, provided that no updated IPR disclosure may retract, revoke or limit any licensing commitment made in an earlier IPR disclosure. 5.4.3. The requirement to make an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the submission of a blanket statement that IPR may exist on every Contribution or a general category of Contributions. This is the case because the aim of the disclosure requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against specific technology under discussion in the IETF. The requirement is also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness or commitment to license all potential IPR Covering such technology under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the same reason. However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's commitment to license all of its IPR meeting the requirements of Section 5.6 (and either Section 5.1.1 or 5.1.2) to implementers of an IETF specification on a royalty-free (and otherwise reasonable and non-discriminatory) basis as long as any other terms and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure. 5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure A. Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license. Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and otherwise reasonable and non- discriminatory license, or b) under a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder. B. The inclusion of a licensing declaration is not mandatory but it is encouraged so that the working groups will have as much information as they can during their deliberations. If the inclusion of a licensing declaration in an IPR disclosure would significantly delay its submission it is quite reasonable to submit an IPR disclosure without a licensing declaration and then Bradner & Contreras [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 submit a new IPR disclosure when the licensing declaration becomes available. IPR disclosures that voluntarily provide text that includes licensing information, comments, notes, or URL for other information may also voluntarily include details regarding specific licensing terms that the IPR holder intends to offer to implementers of Implementing Technologies, including maximum royalty rates C. It is likely that IETF participants will rely on licensing declarations and other information that may be contained in an IPR disclosure and that they will make technical, legal and commercial decisions on the basis of such commitments and information. Thus, when licensing declarations and information, comments, notes, or URLs for further information are contained in an IPR disclosure, such materials shall be deemed irrevocable, and will attach to the associated IPR, and all implementers of Implementing Technologies will be justified and entitled to rely on such materials in relating to such IPR, whether or not it is subsequently transferred to a third party by the IPR holder making the commitment or providing the information. IPR holders making IPR disclosures that contain licensing declarations or providing such information, comments, notes or URLs for further information must ensure that such commitments are binding on any subsequent transferee of the relevant IPR. D. Licensing declarations must be made by people who are authorized to make such declarations. 5.6. Level of Control over IPR requiring Disclosure IPR disclosures under Sections 5.1.1. and 5.1.2 are required with respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert. 5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions. If a Contribution is oral and is not followed promptly by a written disclosure of the same material, and if such oral Contribution would be subject to a requirement that an IPR Disclosure be made had such oral Contribution been written, then the Contributor must accompany such oral Contribution with an oral declaration that he/she is aware of relevant IPR in as much detail as reasonably possible, or file an IPR Declaration with respect to such oral Contribution that otherwise complies with the provisions of Sections 5.1 to 5.6 above. 6. Failure to Disclose Bradner & Contreras [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 There may be cases in which individuals are not permitted by their employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance of patent applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required for anyone making a Contribution or participating in IETF activities, a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason, or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose. Contributing to or participating in IETF activities about a technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of IETF process. In addition to any remedies or defenses that may be available to implementers and others under the law with respect to such a violation (e.g., rendering the relevant IPR unenforceable), the IESG may, when it in good faith concludes that such a violation has occurred, impose penalties including, but not limited to, suspending the posting/participation rights of the offending individual, suspending the posting/participation rights of other individuals employed by the same company as the offending individual, amending, withdrawing or superseding the relevant IETF Documents, and publicly announcing the facts surrounding such violation, including the name of the offending individual and his or her employer or sponsor. See [RFC6701] for details. 7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. Over the last few years the IETF has adopted stricter requirements for some security technologies. It has become common to have a mandatory-to-implement security technology in IETF technology specifications. This is to ensure that there will be at least one common security technology present in all implementations of such a specification that can be used in all cases. This does not limit the specification from including other security technologies, the use of which could be negotiated between implementations. An IETF consensus has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security technology can be specified in an IETF specification unless it has no known IPR claims against it or a royalty-free license is available to all Bradner & Contreras [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 implementers of the specification unless there is a very good reason to do so. This limitation does not extend to other security technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as mandatory-to-implement. It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures is not the same thing as the knowledge that there will be no IPR claims in the future. People or organizations not currently involved in the IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any time. It should also be noted that the validity and enforceability of any IPR may be challenged for legitimate reasons, and the mere existence of an IPR disclosure should not automatically be taken to mean that the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable. Although the IETF can make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a working group will take into account on their own opinions of the validity, enforceability or applicability of Intellectual Property Rights in their evaluation of alternative technologies. However, IETF working group members shall not, as part of any IETF activity, engage in negotiation of licensing or other commercial terms with any IPR holder. 8. Change Control for Technologies The IETF must have change control over the technology described in any standards track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may be discovered or to produce other derivative works. In some cases the developer of patented or otherwise controlled technology may decide to hand over to the IETF the right to evolve the technology (a.k.a., "change control"). The implementation of an agreement between the IETF and the developer of the technology can be complex. (See [RFC1790] and [RFC2339] for examples.) Note that there is no inherent prohibition against a standards track IETF Document making a normative reference to proprietary technology. For example, a number of IETF Standards support proprietary cryptographic transforms. 9. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents RFC 6410 [RFC6410] Section 2.2 states: "If the technology required to implement the specification requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing Bradner & Contreras [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 process. " A key word in this text is "requires." The mere existence of disclosed IPR does not necessarily mean that licenses are actually required in order to implement the technology. 10. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents IETF Documents must not contain any mention of specific IPR. All specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as described in Section 5. Readers should always refer to the on-line web page to get a full list of IPR disclosures received by the IETF concerning any Contribution. (http://www.ietf.org/ipr/) 11. Application to non-IETF Stream Documents This memo has been developed for the benefit and use of the IETF community. As such, the rules set forth herein apply to all Contributions and IETF Documents that are in the "IETF Document Stream" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844 (i.e., those that are contributed, developed, edited and published as part of the IETF Standards Process). The IAB Document Stream, the IRTF Document Stream and the Independent Submission Stream, each as defined in Section 5.1 of RFC 4844 are referred to collectively herein as "Alternate Streams". The legal rules that apply to documents in Alternate Streams are established by the managers of those Alternate Streams as defined in [RFC 4844]. (i.e., the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) and Independent Submission Editor). These managers may elect, through their own internal processes, to cause this memo to be applied to documents contributed to them for development, editing and publication in their respective Alternate Streams. If an Alternate Stream manager elects to adopt this memo, they must do so in a manner that is public and notifies their respective document contributors that this memo applies to their respective Alternate Streams. In such case, each occurrence of the term "Contribution," and "IETF Document" in this memo shall be read to mean a contribution or document in such Alternate Stream, as the case may be. It would be advisable for such Alternate Stream manager to consider adapting the definitions of "Contribution," and other provisions in the memo to suit their particular needs. 12. Security Considerations This memo relates to IETF process, not any particular technology. There are security considerations when adopting any technology, whether IPR-protected or not. A working group should take those security considerations into account as one part of evaluating the technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no known issues of Bradner & Contreras [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 security with IPR procedures. 13. Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879 [this section will be revised before publication to list the actual changes that are approved] This document combines RFC 3979 and RFC 4879. Reordered the defined terms Boilerplate -- since the document boilerplate formerly in BCP79 Sec. 5 has been moved to the Trust Legal Provisions since 2009, deleted the boilerplate requirements from this document. Foreign Counterparts -- don't need to file a new IPR disclosure Provisional Apps -- suggest that these be required to be disclosed only if they are filed with claims. Inventor names -- added words requiring that inventors be listed along with patent numbers. Oral statements -- the existing text is internally contradictory. Some places say that disclosures must be made for oral statements, but others talk about disclosures only being required following publication as an ID. Proposed that oral statements don't trigger the normal IPR disclosure obligations, as oral statements are inherently imprecise and it's hard to know when they describe something covered by the technical terms of a patent claim. However, if an oral contribution is made and it is not followed by a written contribution, then the oral discloser must either make a concurrent oral IPR disclosure or file a formal written disclosure. Other Contribution Clarification -- suggested a number of other clarifications to the definition of Contribution that have come up over the years, including the addition of BOFs. WG Consideration of Patents -- this is mostly in the existing language, but added a sentence saying that WGs should not engage in collective licensing negotiation. Disclosure of licensing terms is ok -- added a sentence. Licensing commitments are irrevocable -- added a paragraph. Lurkers -- this is a complicated issue that runs throughout the Bradner & Contreras [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 document. At a high level, suggested that lurkers ARE required to make IPR disclosures, to avoid a Rambus situation. Penalties -- This paragraph outlining possible sanctions the IESG may impose should be reconciled with the recent RFC that discusses penalties. Updating Disclosures - added a number of clauses to address issues that have come up over the years, including updating obligations if an employee changes jobs or his/her employer buys another company. Alternate Streams - borrowed and adapted the copyright language used in the Trust Legal Provisions. Each alternate stream (Independent, IRTF and IAB) would need to take some action (preferably issuing an RFC) to adopt BCP 79 for its stream. This was done with copyright already, and pretty smoothly. IETF Exec Dir -- flagged the various places where the IETF Exec Director is supposed to do something under this policy. Not sure whether these things are getting done today or by whom. Need to rationalize and update these procedures based on the current admin structure. Generally, also tried to cut back some of the historical and explanatory text that seemed outdated 14. References 14.1. Normative References [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996. [RFC4844] Daigle, L. Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. [RFC6410] Housley, R., D. Crocker, and E. Burger, "Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", RFC 6401, October 2011. 14.2. Informative References [RFC1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR Protocols", RFC 1790, April 1995. Bradner & Contreras [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 [RFC2339] The Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols", RFC 2339, May 1998. [RFC5378] Bradner, S. Ed, J. Contreras, Ed, "Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", RFC 5378, November 2008 [RFC6701] Farrel, A., and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6702, August 2012 [RFC6702] Polk, T. and P. Saint-Andre, "Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)Disclosure Rules", RFC 6702, August 2012 IANA Considerations This memo requires no action by the IANA. [this section should be removed for publication] 15. Editor's Addresses Scott Bradner Harvard University 1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA, 02138 Phone: +1 617 495 3864 EMail: sob@harvard.edu Jorge Contreras American University 4801 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20016 Email: cntreras@gmail.com Changes in revisions of this document version 00 -> version 01 many clean ups suggested by Russ Housley removed "informational" from section 5.1.1 version 01 -> version 02 change RFC 2026 reference in section 9 to RFC 6410 fixed multiple references to (old) section 6 Bradner & Contreras [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC 3979 bis January 2013 revised section 5.5 to clarify the intention, as suggested by David Rudin version 02 -> version 03 created a definition of "participation" in the definitions section as suggested by multiple people A number of changes suggested by Adrian Farrel expanded introduction by including a copy of the abstract fixed reference to RFC 6701 add mention of RFC 6702 to the introduction and added RFC 6702 to the references removed last sentence of section 5.4.2 B removed discussion of asking for info on non-US patents from section 13 revised 5.4.2.C add note about inheritance to section 5.4.2.A revise list of bullets for definition of contribution - section 1.b added 5.5.D fixed wording problem in 5.2.2 noted by SM Bradner & Contreras [Page 18]