diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6701.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc6701.txt | 675 |
1 files changed, 675 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6701.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6701.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..07b69c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6701.txt @@ -0,0 +1,675 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Farrel +Request for Comments: 6701 Juniper Networks +Category: Informational P. Resnick +ISSN: 2070-1721 Qualcomm + August 2012 + + + Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy + +Abstract + + The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the + behavior of all IETF participants with respect to Intellectual + Property Rights (IPR) about which they might reasonably be aware. + + The IETF takes conformance to these IPR policies very seriously. + However, there has been some ambiguity as to what the appropriate + sanctions are for the violation of these policies, and how and by + whom those sanctions are to be applied. + + This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of + potential actions that can be taken within the IETF community in + cases related to patents. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for informational purposes. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents + approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. + + Information about the current status of this document, any + errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6701. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + +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 + (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. + +1. Introduction + + The IETF has developed and documented policies that govern the + behavior of all IETF participants with respect to intellectual + property about which they might reasonably be aware. These are + documented in RFC 3979 [BCP79] and are frequently brought to the + attention of IETF participants. This document summarizes and + references those policies, but does not replace or stand in for the + full statement of the policies found in [BCP79]. Readers and IETF + participants need to be aware of the content of [BCP79]. + + The policies set out in RFC 3979 [BCP79] state that each individual + participant is responsible for disclosing or ensuring the disclosure + of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) where all of the following + apply: + + - they are aware of the IPR + + - the IPR is relevant to the IETF work they are participating in + + - the IPR is owned by the individual or by a company that employs or + sponsors the individual's work. + + Conformance to these IPR policies is very important, and there is a + need to understand both what sanctions can be applied to participants + who violate the policies, and who is in a position to apply the + sanctions. + + This document discusses these issues and provides a suite of + potential actions that can be taken within the IETF community in + cases related to patents. All of these sanctions are currently + available in IETF processes, and at least two instances of violation + of the IPR policy have been handled using some of the sanctions + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + + listed. As explicitly called out in Section 4, a posting rights (PR) + action (described in [BCP25] and [RFC3683]) is an applicable sanction + for the case of a breach of the IETF's IPR policy. + + Note: This document specifies some administrative sanctions that can + be imposed by and through IETF administrative processes. In + particular, this document does not address or limit other legal + sanctions, rights, or remedies that are available outside of the IETF + or any of the legal rights or remedies that anyone has regarding IPR. + + This document does not consider the parallel, but important, issue of + ways to actively promote conformance with the IETF's IPR policy. + That topic is discussed in [RFC6702]. + +2. Description of IETF IPR Policy + + The IETF's IPR policy is set out in [BCP79]. Nothing in this + document defines or redefines the IETF's IPR policy. This section + simply highlights some important aspects of those policies. + Additional information on the IETF's IPR policy may be found at + [URLIPR] and [URLIESGIPR]. + +2.1. Responsibilities of IETF Participants and Timeliness + + According to RFC 3979 [BCP79], individual IETF participants have a + personal responsibility to disclose or ensure the timely disclosure + of IPR of which they are aware and which they own or which is owned + by a company that employs or sponsors them, and which impinges upon + the contribution that they make to the IETF. + + A "contribution" is also defined in RFC 3979 [BCP79] and includes + Internet-Drafts, emails to IETF mailing lists, presentations at IETF + meetings, and comments made at the microphone during IETF meetings. + Remote participants as well as those participating in person at IETF + meetings are bound by this definition. + + The timeliness of disclosure is very important within RFC 3979 + [BCP79]. No precise definition of "timeliness" is given in RFC 3979 + [BCP79], and it is not the purpose of this document to do so. But it + is important to understand that the impact that an IPR disclosure has + on the smooth working of the IETF is directly related to how late in + the process the disclosure is made. Thus, a disclosure made on a + published RFC is very likely to be more disruptive to the IETF than + such a disclosure on an early revision of an individual submission of + an Internet-Draft. + + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + + Third-party disclosures can also be made by anyone who has cause to + believe that IPR exists. Such disclosures must be accompanied by the + reasons for the disclosures. + + It is important to note that each individual IETF participant has a + choice under the IETF's IPR policy. If the individual is unwilling + or unable to disclose the existence of relevant IPR in a timely + manner, that individual has the option to refrain from contributing + to and participating in IETF activities about the technology covered + by the IPR. + +2.2. How Attention Is Drawn to These Responsibilities + + The IETF draws the attention of all participants to the IPR policy + [BCP79] through the "Note Well" statement that appears on the IETF + web pages [URLNoteWell], in presentations at working group and + plenary meetings, as well as in the boilerplate text appearing in + each Internet-Draft and RFC. Additionally, the Note Well statement + is accepted by any person signing up to join an email list hosted at + ietf.org. + + [RFC6702] suggests a number of additional ways in which the attention + of IETF participants can be drawn to the IPR policy. + +2.3. How IPR Disclosures Are Made + + The procedure for filing IPR disclosures is shown on the IETF's web + site at [URLDisclose]. Third-party disclosures can also be made by + email to the IETF Secretariat or via the web page. + + Note that early disclosures or warnings that there might be IPR on a + technology can also be made. + +2.4. How Working Groups Consider IPR Disclosures + + In the normal course of events, a working group that is notified of + the existence of IPR must make a decision about whether to continue + with the work as it is, or whether to revise the work to attempt to + avoid the IPR claim. This decision is made on the working group's + mailing list using normal rough consensus procedures. However, + discussions of the applicability of an IPR claim or of the + appropriateness or merit of the IPR licensing terms are outside the + scope of the WG. The IPR situation is considered by working group + participants as the document advances through the development process + [RFC2026], in particular at key times such as adoption of the + document by the working group and during last call. + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + + It needs to be clearly understood that the way that the working group + handles an IPR disclosure is distinct from the sanctions that can be + applied to the individuals who violated the IETF's IPR policy. That + is, the decision by a working group to, for example, entirely re-work + an Internet-Draft in order to avoid a piece of IPR that has been + disclosed should not be seen as a sanction against the authors. + Indeed, and especially in the case of a late IPR disclosure, that a + working group decides to do this can be considered a harmful side + effect on the working group (in that it slows down the publication of + an RFC and might derail other work the working group could be doing) + and should be considered as one of the reasons to apply sanctions to + the individuals concerned as described in the next two sections. + +2.5. The Desire for Sanctions + + Not conforming to the IETF's IPR policy undermines the work of the + IETF, and sanctions ought to be applied against offenders. + +2.6. Severity of Violations + + Clearly there are different sorts of violations of IPR policy. + Sometimes, a working group participant simply does not realize that + the IPR that they invented applies to a particular working group + draft. Sanctions (if any) need not be at all severe. However, a + working group document editor who waits until near the publication of + a document to reveal IPR of which they themselves are the author + should be subject to more serious sanctions. These are judgments + that can be made by the working group chairs and area director. + + This topic forms the bulk of the material in Sections 5 and 6. + +3. Who Initiates Sanctions + + Any IETF participant can draw attention to an apparent violation of + the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by sending email with a + short summary of the relevant facts and events to the appropriate + IETF mailing list. Normally, the working group chairs and area + directors assume the responsibility for ensuring the smooth running + of the IETF and for the enforcement of IETF policies including the + IPR policy. Thus, when sanctions are appropriate, working group + chairs will be the first actors when there is an active working group + involved in the technical work, and area directors will be the first + actors in other cases. The first step will usually be the working + group chairs or area director to gather the facts and discuss the + matter with the IETF participants involved. + + Working group chairs are already empowered to take action against + working group participants who flout the IPR rules and so disrupt the + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + + smooth running of the IETF or a specific working group, just as they + can take such action in the face of other disruptions. + + The working group chairs have the responsibility to select the + appropriate actions since they are closest to the details of the + issue. Where there is no working group involved or where making the + decision or applying the sanctions is uncomfortable or difficult for + the working group chairs, the responsible AD is available to guide or + direct the action if necessary. + +4. Available Sanctions + + This section lists some of the sanctions available to handle the case + of an individual who violates the IETF's IPR policies. It is not + intended to be an exhaustive list, nor is it suggested that only one + sanction be applied in any case. Furthermore, it is not suggested + here that every case of IPR policy infringement is the same or that + the severest sanctions may be applied in each case. + + In many cases, it may be appropriate to notify a wider IETF community + of the violation and sanctions so that patterns of behavior can be + spotted and handled. + + The sanctions are listed in approximate order of severity, but the + ordering should not be taken as definitive or as driving different + decisions in different cases. Section 5 provides some notes on + fairness, while Section 6 gives some guidance on selecting an + appropriate sanction in any specific case. + + a. A private discussion between the working group chair or area + director and the individual to understand what went wrong and how + it can be prevented in the future. + + b. A formal, but private, warning that the individuals must improve + their behavior or risk one of the other sanctions. + + c. A formal warning on an IETF mailing list that the individuals must + improve their behavior or risk one of the other sanctions. + + d. Announcement to the working group of the failure by the + individuals ("name and shame"). + + e. On-going refusal to accept the individuals as editors of any new + working group documents. The appointment of editors of working + group documents is entirely at the discretion of the working group + chairs acting for the working group as explained in RFC 2418 + [BCP25]. + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + + f. Removal of the individuals as working group document editors on + specific documents or across the whole working group. + + g. Re-positioning of the individuals' attribution in a document to + the "Acknowledgements" section with or without a note explaining + why they are listed there and not in the "Authors' Addresses" + section (viz. the IPR policy violation). This action can also be + recorded by the area director in the Datatracker entries for the + documents concerned. + + h. Deprecation or rejection of the individual document (whether it be + an RFC or Internet-Draft) or cessation of work on the affected + technology. + + i. Application of a temporary suspension of indiviuals' posting + rights to a specific mailing list according to the guidelines + expressed in [BCP25]. Such bans are applied to specific + individuals and to individual working group mailing lists at the + discretion of the working group chairs for a period of no more + than 30 days. + + j. The removal of individuals' posting privileges using a Posting + Rights Action (PR Action) as per [RFC3683]. This is a more + drastic measure that can be applied when other sanctions are + considered insufficient or to have been ineffective. When a PR + action is in place, the subjects have their posting rights to a + particular IETF mailing list removed for a period of a year + (unless the action is revoked or extended), and maintainers of any + IETF mailing list may, at their discretion and without further + recourse to explanation or discussion, also remove posting rights. + + PR actions are introduced by an area director and are considered + by the IETF community and the IESG in order to determine IETF + consensus. + + Note that individuals who have supplied text that is included in an + IETF document (RFC or Internet-Draft) have a right to be recognized + for their contribution. This means that authors' names cannot be + entirely removed from a document in the event that they violate the + IETF's IPR policy unless the text they contributed is also completely + removed. But an individual's name can be removed from the front page + and even moved from the "Authors' Addresses" section so long as + proper acknowledgement of the contribution is given in the + "Acknowledgements" section. + + + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + +4.1. An Additional Note on the Applicability of PR Actions + + The applicability of PR actions in the event of IPR policy possibly + needs some explanation. According to [RFC3683], a PR action may be + considered as a practice for use by the IETF in the case that "a + participant has engaged in a 'denial-of-service' attack to disrupt + the consensus-driven process". + + [RFC3683] further cites RFC 2418 [BCP25] and [RFC3005] for guidelines + for dealing with abusive behavior. RFC 2418 is updated by RFC 3934 + in this matter (see [BCP25]). + + In some cases, ignoring or flouting the IETF's IPR policy may be + considered as disruptive to the smooth operation of a working group + or of the whole IETF such that the offender might be deemed to be a + disruptive individual under the terms of [BCP25] and [RFC3683], and + so is liable to be the subject of a sanction that restricts their + rights to post to IETF mailing lists as described in bullets h and i + of Section 4 of this document. + +5. A Note on Fairness and Appealing Decisions + + As with all decisions made within the IETF, any person who feels that + they have been subject to unfair treatment or who considers that a + decision has been made incorrectly may appeal the decision. The + IETF's appeals procedures are described in Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] + and reinforced in the IESG statement at [URLIESG2026]. Any sanctions + described above may be appealed using these procedures. + +6. Guidance on Selecting and Applying Sanctions + + Whoever is applying sanctions for breaching the IETF's IPR policy + will want to be sure that the chosen sanction matches the severity of + the offense and considers all circumstances. The judgment needs to + be applied equitably should similar situations arise in the future. + + If in any doubt, the person selecting and applying the sanctions + should seek the opinion of the relevant part of the IETF community or + the community as a whole. Furthermore, the person should not + hesitate to seek the advice of their colleagues (co-chairs, area + directors, or the whole IESG). + + This is a judgment call based on all circumstances of each specific + case. Some notes on guidance are supplied in Appendix A. + + + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + +7. Security Considerations + + While nothing in this document directly affects the operational + security of the Internet, failing to follow the IETF's IPR policies + can be disruptive to the IETF's standards development processes and + so may be regarded as an attack on the correct operation of the IETF. + Furthermore, a late IPR disclosure (or a complete failure to + disclose) could represent an attack on the use of deployed and + operational equipment in the Internet. + +8. Acknowledgments + + Thanks to Lou Berger, Ross Callon, Stewart Bryant, Jari Arkko, and + Peter Saint-Andre for comments on an early version of this document. + + Thanks to Subramanian Moonesamy and Tom Petch for their comments on + the work. Thanks to Dan Wing, Tony Li, and Steve Bellovin for + discussions. Thanks to Stephen Farrell for providing a thorough + review as document shepherd. + + Additional thanks for textual improvements around IETF last call go + to Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Jorge Contreras, Russ Housley, Barry + Leiba, Murray S. Kucherawy, Benoit Claise, Sean Turner, and Stewart + Bryant. + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [BCP25] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and + Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. + + Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the + Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934, + October 2004. + + [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF + Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005. + + Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party + Disclosure Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879, + April 2007. + + [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- + Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. + + [RFC3683] Rose, M., "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to + IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 83, RFC 3683, March 2004. + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + +9.2. Informative References + + [RFC3005] Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter", BCP 45, RFC + 3005, November 2000. + + [RFC6702] Polk, T. and P. Saint-Andre, "Promoting Compliance with + Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules", + RFC 6702, August 2012. + + [URLDisclose] IETF, "File an IPR Disclosure", + http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure. + + [URLIESG2026] IETF, "On Appeals of IESG and Area Director Actions and + Decisions", + http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/appeal.html. + + [URLIESGIPR] IETF Tools, "Intellectual Property", + http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/ + wiki/IntellectualProperty. + + [URLIPR] IETF, "Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy", + http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html. + + [URLNoteWell] IETF, "Note Well", + http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + +Appendix A. Guidance on Selecting and Applying Sanctions + + As discussed in Section 6, the selection of sanctions needs to be a + carefully made judgment call that considers all relevant + circumstances and events. This Appendix provides a list of questions + that might form part of that judgment. + + This list of considerations is for guidance and is not prescriptive + or exhaustive, and it does not imply any weighting of the + considerations. + + - How long has the participant been active in the IETF? + + - Is there some exceptional circumstance? + + - Are there special circumstances that imply that the individual + would not have seen or understood the pointers to and content of + [BCP79]? + + - How late is the disclosure? Is the document already a working + group document? How many revisions have been published? How much + time has elapsed? Have last calls been held? Has the work been + published as an RFC? + + - Is the individual a minor contributor to the IETF work, or is the + individual clearly a major contributor? + + - Is there a reason for the individual forgetting the existence of + the IPR (for example, it was filed many years previous to the work + in the IETF)? + + - Was the individual told by their company that disclosure was + imminent, but then something different happened? + + - How speedy and humble was the individual's apology? + + - How disruptive to the IETF work are the disclosure and the + associated license terms? A factor in this will be whether or not + the IETF community sees the need to re-work the document. + + - Does the large number of patents that the individual has invented + provide any level of excuse for failing to notice that one of + their patents covered the IETF work? + + + + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 6701 Sanctions for Violators of IETF IPR Policy August 2012 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Adrian Farrel + Juniper Networks + EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk + + Pete Resnick + Qualcomm + EMail: presnick@qualcomm.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Farrel & Resnick Informational [Page 12] + |