[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Russ
Yes your initial reply got stuck in Earthlink's mail - but what I was saying is that its not that you personally needed detail to file the notice of impending IPR issues with the IETF, and that was my point. It seems that just knowing that there was a provisional filed should be enough.

---

BTW - its not personal of course you are a wizard and I applaud that, but it is an issue with that there isn't a recovery or response process/policy inside the IPR framework or inside the IETF as a whole, and in fact based on the IPR Outgoing Rights and those codified to date there is no possible fix for an IPR Rule violation...

So my take on this is that the real issue is that there isn't any real possible response with the current IETF licensing model. The real controls would have to be defined as to what responses were necessary PRIOR to the OUTGOING RIGHTS and LICENSE Document being crafted since these would be the constraints that it would have to support and implement the control-processes for.

---

What I mean by that is that currently the IETF cannot stop a document's circulation once published, and that means that it doesn't really matter what IPR policies the IETF has in place since they can never be used to correct an infraction of IPR policy by pulling a document which was published by the I-D and RFC Editor Desks which violated US or other IP Laws and the IETF's policies as such.

In fact since the IETF is well aware of the fact that once-published, no document can ever be removed from circulation, its intentional prevention of the implementation of a process to address this in the IP Rights frameworks may in fact mean that the IETF and its officers still bear the liabilities for "ANY and ALL" damages here, and I thought that this was something that the IETF management wanted to 'fix' as it were.

The math is simple...

1) Any document published under the "For any and All Uses without any restrictions" caveat is mechanically out of the control of the IETF once done, and as long as the derivative and republishing requirements are met, it doesn't matter what or who is demanding that the IETF recover and prevent the distribution of those medias, because it will be functionally impossible.

2) Since there are no controls which can pull a document from circulation the management of the IETF bears all responsibility for any damages that occur as such - since they have full knowledge that there system intentionally sets aside those common controls that any sane Copyright-Upholding entity would put in place immediately to protect itself.

This is simple procedural methodology... and the IETF needs to address this in both its Outgoing Rights document and in the Submission Document which also needs a 'hold harmless' clause in which the Submitters and their Sponsor's indemnify through the Submissions Process, the IETF for its actions as the submitter's publication agent for the IP's

Todd




----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>; "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
Cc: "Mark Brown" <mark at redphonesecurity.com>; <ietf at ietf.org>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns


Todd:

This is a follow-on note. Did you miss the earlier one, where I said:
>
> I was aware that Mark Brown was working on a patent; however, I did not
> begin working with him until after his provisional patent
application was filed.
> I did not see the claims until the filing became public.
>
> Since I knew that a patent was in the works, but I did not know the > details,
> at the time we submitted the -00 draft to the repository (which was
> February 2006), I reminded Mark Brown that an IPR statement might be
> necessary.

Without seeing the claims, I could not know whether or not an IPR statement was required. Thus, the reminder to my coauthor was the appropriate action on my part.

Russ


At 12:23 PM 4/9/2007, todd glassey wrote:
Russ - this isn't about Financial Interests its about the need to formally disclose something that you are uniquely aware of that the rest of the IETF isn't. That makes you liable IMHO for any damages someone suffers because of this failure to disclose. And since you are a IETF Manager its worse.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
To: "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
Cc: "Mark Brown" <mark at redphonesecurity.com>; <ietf at ietf.org>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns


Dean:

I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a document for which I am an author. You will find this to be the normal practice for all IESG members.

I have no financial interest in PedPhone Security or the patent filing. I provided consulting services to RedPhone Security; it was a simple work for hire.

I have no investors in my very small consulting company: Vigil Security, LLC. I am the owner, and I am the only full-time employee.

Russ


ItAt 07:47 PM 4/7/2007, Dean Anderson wrote: 
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Russ Housley wrote:

> Dean:
>
> >I'm still not clear on a few things:
> >
> >-- When did Russ Housley learn of the Patent Filing?
>
> I was aware that Mark Brown was working on a patent; however, I did
> not begin working with him until after his provisional patent
> application was filed.  I did not see the claims until the filing
> became public.
>
> Since I knew that a patent was in the works, but I did not know the
> details, at the time we submitted the -00  draft to the repository
> (which was February 2006), I reminded Mark Brown that an IPR
> statement might be necessary.

How long did it take to produce the draft? Presumably, you must have
started working on the project earlier than the date of submission.
Did you know of the patent application before submission?


I note that you recused yourself from the decisions made on this draft.
That is commendable. It also implies that you stand to benefit somehow
from the draft. But the patent (assuming it is granted) gives Brown and
Wilke a monopoly on the technology.  How is it, in general terms, that
you will benefit from this draft?  Do you have, perhaps, a favorable
license agreement with Brown?  Perhaps stock in Brown's company?  Did
Brown agree to invest in your company?  Is there another patent
application? As it stands, the information we have, indicates that only
Brown stands to benefit, and this doesn't explain your involvement in
these drafts. Some clarity on how you stand to benefit would be helpful.


--
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg