Re: IPR Notice

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Geoff,
>
> The instruction of the ADs in this case was that the Working Group
> must be satisfied with the IPR claims in relation to technology that
> they are passing to the IESG for publication as proposed standards for
> SHIM6..
Indeed.
>
> I have voiced some objection to this instruction on the basis that I
> know I am no IPR lawyer, and I suspect that the overall majority of
> the SHIM6 WG are not IPR lawyers either, and the IETF would be better
> advised to seek professional advice at the IESG level, but the outcome
> of that discussion with the ADs was that IPR is a WG matter.
I feel your pain. Sorry, but its the way it is. We could
argue what the arrangement should be (I happen
to believe its still better this way), but this is not
the place to talk about that.
> So, according to the above stipulation then this is a necessary
> conversation. for this working group.
>
> In this case my call is that if you believe otherwise, please take the
> matter to the ADs.
Clarification. I believe Fred's point was that there are matters
that are specific to this WG and other, more generic issues.
The matter for the WG is whether they are happy with the
documents with all of their features, including algorithms,
protocol bits, descriptions, IPRs, and all. And specifically,
we have received a new IPR declaration, does that change
what the working group thought earlier? And that
does involve looking at the details -- there is a significant
difference between, say, "royalty-free" and "reasonable"...

But if there are issues such as that the IETF IPR rules
should change or that we should go search for a planet
without IPR (both issues I fully agree with). These seem
to be fodder for more general work at the IETF. Perhaps
the interested parties should get together and form a
list to talk about that? I would certainly be interested
because I believe the IETF IPR rules are too relaxed.

--Jari