GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3668

Network Working Group S. Bradner Request for Comments: 3668 Harvard University BCP: 79 February 2004 Updates: 2028, 2026 Category: Best Current Practice

          Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

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 3667, 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.

Table of Contents

 1.  Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1. No Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
          Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
 5.  Notice to be included in RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 6.  IPR Disclosures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  Who must make an IPR disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

     6.2.  The timing of providing disclosure . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.3.  How must a disclosure be made? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.4.  What must be in a disclosure?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.5.  What licensing information to detail in a disclosure . . 12
     6.6.  When is a disclosure required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 7.  Failure to disclose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 8.  Evaluating alternative technologies in IETF working groups . . 13
 9.  Change control for technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 10. Licensing requirements to advance standards track documents. . 14
 11. No IPR disclosures in IETF documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 12. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 15. Editor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 16. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

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
    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,

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

    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
    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

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

 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

 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

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

 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
 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 [RFC 3667] 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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

 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 [RFC 3667].

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

 (A) When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before
     publication as an 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.)

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

 (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,
 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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

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 procedures with respect to rights
    in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
    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
 place of the participant doing so.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

6.2.1. Timing of disclosure under Section 6.1.1

 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 Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

6.5. What licensing information to detail in a disclosure.

 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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

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
 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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

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
 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/)

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 14] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

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.

13. References

13.1. Normative References

 [RFC 2026] Bradner, S., Ed., "The Internet Standards Process --
            Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [RFC 2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
            the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October
            1996.
 [RFC 2418] Bradner, S., Ed., "Working Group Guidelines and
            Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
 [RFC 3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC
            3667, February 2004.

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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 15] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

15. Editor's Address

 Scott Bradner
 Harvard University
 29 Oxford St.
 Cambridge MA, 02138
 Phone: +1 617 495 3864
 EMail: sob@harvard.edu

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 3668 IP in IETF Technology February 2004

16. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (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.

Intellectual Property

 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 procedures with respect to
 rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 17]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3668.txt · Last modified: 2004/02/17 17:10 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki