[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 3668

Network Working Group                                        S. Bradner
Internet-Draft                                               Harvard U.
                                                                 Editor
                                                           October 2003

            Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology

               <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

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 also 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, with RFC XXXY, replaces Section 10 of
   RFC 2026.  This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC
   2028, for all purposes, including reference [2] in RFC 2418. [note to
   RFC editor - replace XXXY with number of IETF SUB]

                 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003)




Bradner                                                         [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


Table of Contents

   Status of this Memo ................................................1
   Abstract ...........................................................1
   1.  Definitions ....................................................2
   2.  Introduction ...................................................5
   3.  Contributions to the IETF ......................................6
     3.1  General Policy ..............................................6
     3.2  Rights and Permissions ......................................6
   4.  Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s)
       Have Been Received .............................................7
     4.1 No Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms ..7
   5.   Notice to be included in RFCs .................................8
   6.  IPR Disclosures ................................................9
     6.1  Who must make an IPR disclosure? ............................9
     6.2  The timing of providing disclosure ..........................9
     6.3  How must a disclosure be made? .............................10
     6.4  What must be in a disclosure? ..............................10
     6.5  What licensing information to detail in a disclosure .......11
     6.6  When is a disclosure required? .............................12
   7.  Failure to disclose ...........................................12
   8.  Evaluating alternative technologies in IETF working groups ....12
   9.  Change control for technologies ...............................13
   10. Licensing requirements to advance standards track documents ...14
   11. No IPR disclosures in IETF documents ..........................14
   12. Security Considerations .......................................14
   13. References ....................................................14
     13.1 Normative References .......................................14
     13.2 Informative References .....................................15
   14. Acknowledgements ..............................................15
   15. Editors Address ...............................................15
   16. Full copyright statement ......................................15


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 [RFC 2028].

   a. "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.

   b. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in



Bradner                                                         [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


      any of the settings described in 1(c) below.

   c. "IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
      RFC (except for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any
      statement made within the context of an IETF activity. Such
      statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as
      written and electronic communications made at any time or place,
      which are addressed to:
      o  the IETF plenary session,
      o  any IETF working group 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, including the IETF list itself, any
         working group or design team list, or any other list
         functioning under IETF auspices,
      o  the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function (except for RFC
         Editor Contributions described below).

      Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
      function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
      activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the
      context of this document.

   d. "Internet-Draft": temporary documents used in the IETF and RFC
      Editor processes.  Internet-Drafts are posted on the IETF web site
      by the IETF Secretariat and have a nominal maximum lifetime in the
      Secretariat's public directory of 6 months, after which they are
      removed.  Note that Internet-Drafts are archived many places on
      the Internet, and not all of these places remove expired Internet-
      Drafts.  Internet-Drafts that are under active consideration by
      the IESG are not removed from the Secretariat's public directory
      until that consideration is complete. In addition, the author of
      an Internet-Draft can request that the lifetime in the
      Secretariat's public directory be extended before the expiration.

   e. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF.  RFCs are
      published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified.
      (See [RFC 2026] Section 2.1)

   f. "RFC Editor Contribution": An Internet-Draft intended by the
      Contributor to be submitted to the RFC Editor for publication as
      an Informational or Experimental RFC but not intended to be part
      of the IETF Standards Process.

   g. "IETF Internet-Drafts": Internet-Drafts other than RFC Editor
      Contributions.  Note that under Section 3.3(a) the grant of rights
      in regards to IETF Internet-Drafts as specified in this document



Bradner                                                         [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


      is perpetual and irrevocable and thus survives the Secretariat's
      removal of an Internet-Draft from the public directory, except as
      limited by Section 3.3(a)(C).  (See [RFC 2026] Sections 2.2 and 8)

   h. "IETF Documents":  RFCs and Internet-Drafts except for Internet-
      Drafts that are RFC Editor Contributions and the RFCs that are
      published from them.

   i. "RFC Editor Documents":  RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are RFC
      Editor Contributions and the RFCs that may be published from them.

   j. "Contribution": IETF Contributions or RFC Editor Contributions

   k. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution

   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. "Implementing Technology": means a technology that implements an
      IETF specification or standard.

   n. "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a
      patent application in any jurisdiction or a protected claim, 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.

   o. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright,
      utility model, invention registration, database and data rights
      that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights
      arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application
      therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.


2. Introduction




Bradner                                                         [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   In the years since RFC 2026 was published there have been a number of
   times when the exact intent of Section 10, the section which deals
   with IPR disclosures has been the subject of vigorous debate within
   the IETF community.  This is because it is becoming increasingly
   common for IETF working groups to have to deal with claims of
   Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, with
   regards to technology under discussion in working groups.  The aim of
   this document is to clarify various ambiguities in Section 10 of [RFC
   2026] that led to these debates and to amplify the policy in order to
   clarify what the IETF is, or should be, doing.

   IPR disclosures can come at any point in the IETF Standards Process,
   e.g., before the first Internet-Draft has been submitted, prior to
   RFC publication, or after an RFC has been published and the working
   group has been closed down; they can come from people submitting
   technical proposals as Internet-Drafts, on mailing lists or at
   meetings, from other people participating in the working group or
   from third parties who find out that the work is going or has gone
   on; and they can be based on granted patents or on patent
   applications, and in some cases be disingenuous, i.e., made to affect
   the IETF Standards Process rather than to inform.

   RFC 2026 Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the
   IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights:

   (a) the IETF will make no determination about the validity of any
      particular IPR claim
   (b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology
      for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such a
      use is warranted
   (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
      the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
      of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
      group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
      Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may
      ultimately Cover the technology under discussion.  This applies to
      both Contributors and other participants, and applies whether they
      contribute in person, via email or by other means.  The
      requirement applies to all IPR of the participant, the
      participant's employer, sponsor, or others represented by the
      participants, that is reasonably and personally known to the
      participant.  No patent search is required.

   Section 1 defines the terms used in this document.  Sections 3, 4 and
   5 of this document address the intellectual property issues
   previously addressed by Section 10 of RFC 2026.  Sections 6 thru 12
   then explain the rationale for these provisions, including some of
   the clarifications that have been made since the adoption of RFC



Bradner                                                         [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   2026.  The rules and procedures set out in this document are not
   intended to modify or alter the IETF's current policy toward IPR in
   the context of the IETF Standards Process.  They are intended to
   clarify and fill in procedural gaps.

   A companion document [IETF SUB] deals with rights (such 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.

   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 of 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

3.2.1.  All Contributions
   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 6.1.1 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.

   C. If the Contribution is an Internet-Draft, this agreement must be
      acknowledged, by including in the "Status of this Memo" section on
      the first page of the Contribution, the appropriate notices
      described in Section 5 of [IETF SUB].


4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received



Bradner                                                         [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   (A)  When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before
      publication as a RFC, with respect to any technology or
      specification, described in a Contribution in the manner set forth
      in Section 6 of this document, the RFC Editor shall ensure that
      the document include a note indicating the existence of such
      claimed Intellectual Property Rights in any RFC published from the
      Contribution.  (See Section 5 below.)

   (B)  The IESG disclaims 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 claims.

   (C)  Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
      Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
      Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR, a
      written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for publication
      as RFCs 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 Implementing Technology
      under one of the licensing options specified in Section 6.5 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
      Executive Director 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 Executive Director, and be made available
      online.

4.1  No Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms
   The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance
   of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms or any other terms for the
   use of an Implementing Technology has been fulfilled in practice.  It
   will instead apply the normal requirements for the advancement of
   Internet Standards.  If the two unrelated implementations of the
   specification that are required to advance from Proposed Standard to
   Draft Standard have been produced by different organizations or
   individuals, or if the "significant implementation and successful
   operational experience" required to advance from Draft Standard to
   Standard has been achieved, the IESG will presume that the terms are
   reasonable and to some degree non-discriminatory.  (See RFC 2026



Bradner                                                         [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   Section 4.1.3.) Note that this also applies to the case where
   multiple implementers have concluded that no licensing is required.
   This presumption may be challenged at any time, including during the
   Last-Call period by sending email to the IESG.


5. Notice to be included in RFCs

   The RFC Editor will ensure that the following notice is present in
   all IETF RFCs and all other RFCs for which an IPR disclosure or
   assertion has been received prior to publication.

   Disclaimer of validity:

      "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
      Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
      to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
      described in this document or the extent to which any license
      under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
      represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
      such rights.  Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to
      rights in IETF Documents can be found in RFC XX and RFC XY.  [note
      to RFC Editor - replace XX with the number of this document and
      replace XY with number of IETF SUB.]

      Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
      assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
      attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
      of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
      specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
      at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

      The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
      any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
      proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
      to implement this standard.  Please address the information to the
      IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org."

6.  IPR Disclosures

   This section discusses aspects of obligations associated with IPR
   disclosure.

   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



Bradner                                                         [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   place of the participant doing so.

6.1  Who must make an IPR disclosure?

6.1.1  A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution
   Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
   the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
   or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the
   Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or
   sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such
   Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section
   6.

   This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by
   any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter
   are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably
   be submitted.  An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous
   disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR
   disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised
   Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure.

   Contributors must disclose IPR meeting the description in this
   section; there are no exceptions to this rule.

6.1.2. An IETF participant's IPR in Contributions by others
   Any individual participating in an IETF discussion who reasonably and
   personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which
   the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Cover a 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 Contribution, must make a
   disclosure in accordance with this Section 6.

6.1.3. IPR of others
   If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
   Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
   because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
   is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
   the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr@ietf.org.  Such a
   notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
   realizes the connection.

6.2.  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.

6.2.1 Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.1



Bradner                                                         [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an
   Internet Draft 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.

   If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that meets
   the conditions of Section 6.6, 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.

   Participants who realize that a Contribution will be or has been
   incorporated into a submission to be published in an Internet Draft,
   or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly
   encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure.  That
   disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
   reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually
   posted or ready for posting.



6.2.2 Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.2
   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.2 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an
   Internet Draft or RFC, unless the required disclosure is already on
   file. Participants who realize that the IPR will be or has been
   incorporated into a submission to be published in an Internet Draft,
   or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly
   encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure.  That
   disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
   reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually
   posted or ready for posting.

   If a participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions of
   Section 6.6 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 published in an Internet-Draft
   or RFC, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible
   after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
   participant.




Bradner                                                        [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


6.3  How must a disclosure be made?
   IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.

6.4  What must be in a disclosure?
6.4.1 The 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 disclosure must also list the
   specific IETF or RFC Editor 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, it is
   helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document
   that are alleged to be so Covered.

6.4.2  If a disclosure was made on the basis of a patent application
   (either published or unpublished), then, if requested to do so by the
   IESG or by a working group chair, the IETF Executive Director can
   request a new disclosure indicating whether any of the following has
   occurred:  the publication of a previously unpublished patent
   application, the abandonment of the application and/or the issuance
   of a patent thereon.  If the patent has issued, then the new
   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, it is helpful if such a
   disclosure describes any differences in applicability to the
   Contribution.  If the patent application was abandoned, then the new
   disclosure must explicitly withdraw any earlier disclosures based on
   the application.

   New or revised disclosures may be made voluntarily at any time.

6.4.3  The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the
   submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every
   Contribution.  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 to license
   all potential IPR under fair 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 willingness
   to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of
   Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an
   IETF specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms
   and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.

6.5  What licensing information to detail in a disclosure.



Bradner                                                        [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   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 RFCs 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.

   The inclusion of licensing information in IPR disclosures 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 licensing information in an IPR disclosure would
   significantly delay its submission it is quite reasonable to submit a
   disclosure without licensing information and then submit a new
   disclosure when the licensing information becomes available.

6.6  When is a disclosure required?
   IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 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.


7.  Failure to disclose

   There are cases where 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 submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions,
   a person who does not 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 discussions about a
   technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
   IETF process.


8.  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



Bradner                                                        [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   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
   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.


9.  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



Bradner                                                        [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   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 [RFC 1790] and [RFC 2339] 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.


10. Licensing requirements to advance standards track IETF Documents

   RFC 2026 Section 4.1.2 states: "If patented or otherwise controlled
   technology is required for implementation, the separate
   implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the
   licensing process."  A key word in this text is "required."  The mere
   existence of disclosed IPR does not necessarily mean that licenses
   are actually required in order to implement the technology.  Section
   4.1 of this document should be taken to apply to the case where there
   are multiple implementations and none of the implementers have felt
   that they needed to license the technology and they have no plausible
   indications that any IPR holder(s) will try to enforce their IPR.


11.  No IPR disclosures in IETF Documents

   IETF and RFC Editor Documents must not contain any mention of
   specific IPR.  All specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as
   described in Section 6.  Specific IPR disclosures must not be in the
   affected IETF and RFC Editor Documents because the reader could be
   misled.  The inclusion of a particular IPR disclosure in a document
   could be interpreted to mean that the IETF, IESG or RFC Editor has
   formed an opinion on the validity, enforceability or applicability of
   the IPR.  The reader could also be misled to think that the included
   IPR disclosures are the only IPR disclosures the IETF has received
   concerning the IETF document.  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/)


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
   security with IPR procedures.



Bradner                                                        [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


13.  References

13.1 Normative references
   [RFC 2026] Bradner, S. (ed), "The Internet Standards Process --
      Revision 3", RFC 2026, October 1996

   [RFC 2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
      the IETF Standards Process", RFC 2028, October 1996

   [RFC 2418] Bradner, S. (ed), "Working Group Guidelines and
      Procedures", RFC 2518, September 1998

   [IETF SUB] work in progress: draft-iprwg-submission-00.txt

13.2 Informative references
   [RFC 1790] 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

   [RFC 2339] IETF & 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

14.  Acknowledgements

   The editor would like to acknowledge the help of the IETF IPR Working
   Group and, in particular the help of Jorge Contreras of Hale and Dorr
   for his careful legal reviews of this and other IETF IPR-related and
   process documents.  The editor would also like to thank Valerie See
   for her extensive comments and suggestions.

15. Editors Address

   Scott Bradner
   Harvard University
   29 Oxford St.
   Cambridge MA, 02138

   sob@harvard.edu +1 617 495 3864


16. Full copyright statement:

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  Except as set forth
   below, authors retain all their rights.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it



Bradner                                                        [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for rights
   in submissions defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/S HE
   REPRESENTS (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


17. change log

   (note to RFC Editor - remove this section prior to publication)

   version 00 to version 01
      sec 1 b - add "following normal processes"
      sec 1 c - reword
      sec 2.2.1 - add "if the contribution is an Internet-Draft"
      sec 6 - largely reworked
      sec 6.7 - added call for IPR with WG & IETF last calls
      sec 7 - add "or participates in a working group discussion" .br
      sec 8 - add "or other factors"
      sec 14 - redo security considerations
      sec 15 - added acknowledgements
      sec 18 - added change log

   version 01 to version 02
      fix miscellaneous typos throughout document
      swap personally and reasonably
      change "IPR claim" to "IPR disclosure" a number of places
      abstract - note update of rfc 2026
      sec 1 - remove ISOC
      sec 1(c) - reword -  remove implication disclose of 3rd party IPR
      sec 2.2.1 - reword - remove 3rd party IPR holders



Bradner                                                        [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


      sec 3 (C) - added royalty-free - removed "standards track"
           remove text about implementations      did not add "implicit"
      because that is just what the IESG is doing      remove "openly
      specified"
      sec 3.1 - added note about no licensing case
      sec 4 - change so RFC Editor adds IPR statements      tweak 4(A)
      so 4(C) could be removed & make it generic to      IETF documents
      sec 5.1 & 5.2 - included definitions from copyright ID
      sec 6.1.1 - last sentence - reword
      sec 6.2.1 - append sec 6.2.3
      sec 6.2.2 - reword
      sec 6.3.1 - tweak wording
      sec 6.4 - replace - add royalty-free      add granted patent
      applications
      sec 6.5 1st pp - replace - add royalty-free      remove example
      classes
      sec 6.6 - replace
      sec 7 - tweak last sentence
      sec 9 - tweak wording add security RF requirement
      sec 14.2 - remove unneeded references

      ver 02 to ver 03
      many editing changes throughout document
      generally changed "claim" to "disclosure"
      changed the disclosure email addresses and pointed to a web site
      for instructions
      sec 2.2.1 A - removed detail - reference sec 6.1.1
      remove old sec 7
      sec 4 - added definition of covered      changed other text to use
      "covered"
      sec 5 - changed def of cover
      sec 6.1.1, 6.1.2 & 6.1.3 - reword

      open questions:      document process for ipr & document
      advancement

   ver 03 to ver 04
      a number of wording clarifications
      sec 6.4 2nd pp - removed note of need to state how new IPR applies
      because that is redundant with filing a new disclosure

   ver 04 to ver 05
      sec 6.4 - change Internet-Draft to IETF document

   ver 05 to ver 06
      a number of wording clarifications
      add ToC
      move definitions to top of document



Bradner                                                        [Page 17]

Internet-Draft            IP in IETF Technology             October 2003


      sec 1 - def of Contribution - change "meeting" to "session"
      sec 2 - expanded definition of Covers
      sec 6.1.1 - change "intends" to "may"
      sec 6.4 - restructure - change "must" to "should" for disclosure
      on abandonment
      sec 7 - added "participating in" in a few places
      sec 8 - changed "claim" to disclosure & added enforceability
      sec 11 - added IESG & validity, enforceability or applicability

   ver 06 to 07
      fix misc typos in document
      sec 1 - import definitions from IETF SUB
      tweak to deal with separation between IETF & RFC Editor documents
         (e.g. add sec 4(B))
      sec 4(D) tweak wording in 4(D) 2nd pp
      sec 6.4.1 - fix typo of substance in 1st line

   ver 07 to ver 08
      sec 6.4.2 - redo to remove new requirements
      sec 6.5 - add 2nd pp

   ver 08 to ver 09
      sec 5 - reword 1st pp
      sec 6.1.1 - reword to remove "should" and deal with non-ID
      contributions
      sec 6.2.1 - add need for contribution to be in an ID
      6.4.1 - reword to remove "should"
      sec 6.4.2 - reword to avoid "should"
      sec 6.5 - reword title, reword text to avoid "should"
      sec 8 - change "should" to "can"
      sec 11 - change "should" to "must"

   ver 09 to ver 10
      sec 6 - add note on participant
      sec 6.2.1 & 6.2.2 - tweak wording

   ver 10 to ver 11
      misc typos, editorial tweaks & punctuation throughout document
      sec 6.2.1 - reorder 2nd & 3rd pp and reword new 2nd pp for clarity
      sec 6.2.2 - change "published as" to "published in"(a contribution
      may not be an ID all by itself) - add 2nd pp
      sec 6.4.3 - tweak wording about blanket RF disclosures
      sec 9 - removed 2nd sentence in 1st pp, replace last pp

   ver 11 to ver 12
      IESG and V See editorial tweaks





Bradner                                                        [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/